A qualitative study of COVID-19 vaccine intentions and mistrust in Black Americans: Recommendations for vaccine dissemination and uptake.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination rates among Black Americans have been lower than White Americans and are disproportionate to their population size and COVID-19 impact. This study examined reasons for low vaccination intentions and preferred strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccination.
METHODS: Between November 2020 and March 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 participants who expressed low vaccination intentions in a RAND American Life Panel survey; we also interviewed five stakeholders who represent organizations or subgroups in Black communities that have been highly affected by COVID-19.
RESULTS: Many interviewees discussed the "wait-and-see" approach, citing that more time and evidence for vaccine side effects and efficacy are needed. Perceived barriers to COVID-19 vaccination included structural barriers to access (e.g., transportation, technology) and medical mistrust (e.g., towards the vaccines themselves, the government, healthcare providers and healthcare systems, and pharmaceutical companies) stemming from historical and contemporary systematic racism against Black communities. Interviewees also discussed strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccines, including acknowledging systemic racism as the root cause for mistrust, preferred messaging content (e.g., transparent messages about side effects), modes, and access points (e.g., a variety of medical and non-medical sites), and trusted information sources (e.g., trusted leaders, Black doctors and researchers).
CONCLUSIONS: These insights can inform ways to improve initial and booster vaccination uptake as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses.

Introduction

COVID-19 disproportionately affects Black Americans [1]. Compared to non-Hispanic White Americans, Black Americans were 1.1 times more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 diagnoses, 2.8 times more likely to be hospitalized, and twice as likely to die from COVID-19 as of July 2021 [2]. COVID-19 related disparities are further exacerbated by low vaccination rates among Black Americans, particularly at the beginning of the vaccine roll-out. Since the announcement of effective COVID-19 vaccines in November 2020, Black Americans have been less likely to receive a vaccine than White Americans. While the vaccination rate has increased from January through August 2021 for all racial/ethnic groups, Black Americans have the lowest vaccination rate (25.4% fully vaccinated) compared to White Americans (33.7%) [3], and their vaccination rate remains disproportional to their population size and COVID-19 impact in terms of cases and deaths [4]. The most recent national data published from September to November 2021 have documented increased vaccination rates among Black Americans and reduced disparities in vaccination rates between Black and White Americans [5-7]. However, younger Black adults showed lower vaccination intention for the booster dose (i.e., 30% did not intend to get a booster dose), compared to younger Hispanic and non-Hispanic White adults (i.e., 16% did not intend to get a booster dose) [6]. Although vaccine intentions and rates have increased over time in Black communities [8], vaccination rates among Black Americans were the lowest compared to other racial groups during most of 2021, suggesting insufficient efforts to increase access. News reports as well as recent research data have documented accommodation and accessibility barriers with COVID-19 vaccine access in Black and other underserved communities of color [9-12].

In addition to barriers with vaccine access, medical mistrust is a factor that can influence low COVID-19 vaccination rates among Black Americans. Medical mistrust is defined as distrust of the healthcare system, providers, and treatments and is prevalent among Black Americans for various health conditions, including in the HIV epidemic [13,14]. Evidence shows that mistrust has extended to beliefs about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines [15]. Medical mistrust is rooted in the historical mistreatment of Black Americans both within health care as well as U.S. society and institutions and is maintained by persistent discrimination, inequities, and injustices. While medical mistrust is associated with negative health-related outcomes [16], recent research has shifted toward viewing medical mistrust as an adaptive and justifiable response due to negative personal experiences or historical injustice [13,17].

In a recent review, Black Americans showed the lowest COVID-19 vaccine confidence compared to other racial/ethnic groups, and medical mistrust and past racial discrimination were significant predictors [18]. Concerns about safety, efficacy, and side effects, and exposure to myths and misinformation also predicted low vaccine confidence [18]. In a nationally representative sample of Black Americans, high mistrust of the vaccine itself (e.g., concerns about harm and side effects) and weak subjective norms for vaccination in one’s close social network were predictors of low vaccination intention, and living in an area of higher socioeconomic vulnerability was a marginally significant predictor [19].

Few qualitative studies have examined the manifestation of COVID-19 related medical mistrust in Black Americans, how it influences vaccine confidence and intentions, and how culturally responsive strategies may be developed to promote COVID-19 that focused specifically on Black communities. One study conducted focus groups in racial/ethnic minority populations, including Black communities, in LA County and identified contextual (e.g., references to mistrust from unethical research studies, accessibility and accommodation barriers, inequitable access), individual/social (e.g., inadequate exposure to trusted messengers or information, medical mistrust), and vaccine-specific influences to the vaccination decision-making process (e.g., need for vaccine evidence by subpopulation, misconceptions on vaccine development) [11]. The current study, which was conducted in the early months of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out in the U.S., contributes additional qualitative data to fill this gap. Specifically, we examined barriers to and facilitators of COVID-19 vaccination, including mistrust and vaccine access, and elicited strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccination in Black communities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with Black individuals who said that they would not or were not willing to get vaccinated as well as with stakeholders who represent organizations or subgroups in Black communities that have been highly affected by COVID-19 (e.g., people living with HIV, sexual and gender minority individuals, communities of immigrants) between December 2020-March 2021, before COVID-19 vaccines were released to all adults in the general public. Therefore, the current study provides information about factors that are related to vaccine intentions early in the vaccine roll-out process, before most U.S. residents were eligible for vaccination and prior to wide-scale efforts within Black communities to encourage vaccination.

Materials and methods

Design and participants

The current study had two phases. In phase one, we conducted a web-based survey of Black Americans from November 17, 2020, to December 2, 2020. The timing of the survey was about one week after Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna made public announcements about the high efficacy of their vaccines and prior to Food and Drug Administration Emergency Use Authorization. Participants were drawn from the RAND American Life Panel (ALP), a nationally representative internet panel of U.S. adults aged 18 and older. The ALP currently has over 3,000 active members who have been recruited from several other surveys and directly for the panel using multiple modes (e.g., in-person, telephone, and mail) and probability-based sampling methods, including address-based samples and telephone (random-digit dial) samples. Full details of the ALP’s methodology are available in the technical documentation [20]. We sent the survey invitation to all 318 ALP panelists who self-identified as Black Americans, of whom 207 completed the survey (completion rate: 65%). In phase two, we selected and invited survey respondents who endorsed low vaccination intention to participate in a semi-structured qualitative interview. A total of 24 ALP participants completed semi-structured interviews from December 2020 to March 2021. We obtained online informed consent from all ALP participants and verbal assent from all qualitative interview participants prior to conducting the interviews. Detailed ALP survey methodology is previously published [21], and main quantitative survey results were published elsewhere [19]. Following standard ALP rates, the incentive for the 25-minute survey was $17, and the incentive for the 60-minute interview was $40.

We assembled a community advisory board (CAB) of eight stakeholders to provide input to the study throughout the research process, and the committee convened monthly from November 2020 to April 2021. Stakeholders represented organizations in Black communities or subcommunities (e.g., people living with HIV, sexual and gender minority individuals, individuals from immigrant communities) that have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We completed interviews with five stakeholders using the same interview protocol as with participants. Before participating in the interview, stakeholders provided verbal assent and were paid $40 for completing the 60-minute interview. RAND’s Institutional Review Board approved the study design and protocol. This study is reported following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) reporting guidelines.

Qualitative sample selection

Overall, 79 ALP participants were eligible and invited to participate in the interview based on their responses to vaccine intention questions in the ALP survey; 24 participants responded and completed the interview. The sample size was determined given the timeframe for interviewing, and we stopped recruitment when we reached a sufficient number. Two questions on the ALP survey assessed negative and positive vaccine intentions: (1) “If a vaccine were available to prevent COVID-19, I would not get it,” with response options strongly disagree, disagree, don’t know, agree, and strongly agree; (2) “Would you be willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available?’ with response options yes, no, and don’t know/not sure. Two questions were used to assess whether the responses may differ by question methodology (i.e., asking whether one would not get vaccinated vs. one’s willingness to get vaccinated). For the qualitative sample selection, we first selected participants (n = 65) who showed low vaccination intentions on both questions (responded strongly agree or agree to question 1 AND no to question 2). To expand the qualitative sample, we relaxed the inclusion criteria to invite additional participants (n = 14) who showed low vaccination intentions on either question (responded strongly agree/agree or don’t know/not sure to question 1 OR no or don’t know/not sure to question 2).

Interview protocol and study team

The interview protocol was developed to elicit information about: (1) personal intentions and beliefs related to COVID-19 vaccination; (2) feedback and suggestions about ways to promote COVID-19 vaccination; (3) trusted information sources and social influences of vaccination information and intention; and (4) ideas about community campaigns for COVID-19 vaccination in Black communities. We used open-ended questions that were phrased in a way that did not make any assumptions and allowed for participants to answer freely. Sample interview questions for each topic are available in Table 1. As the COVID-19 vaccines began to roll out in communities across the U.S., we included a few more sub-questions in our interviews to assess additional perceptions of information sharing and messaging strategies (e.g., describing the vaccines as mandatory, giving compensation for getting vaccination). Of those interviews conducted after these new questions were developed, five interviews inadvertently did not include these particular probes, although interviewees did more generally address information sharing and messaging strategies. The CAB and all co-authors reviewed and provided feedback on the interview guide.

Table 1

Sample interview questions by topics.

Topics	Sample Questions
Personal Intentions and Beliefs related to COVID-19 vaccination	• What, if anything, have you heard about the process of how COVID-19 vaccines are being developed?• When a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, how much would you want to get vaccinated? Why or why not?• What types of things would make it more difficult or challenging for you to get vaccinated for COVID-19 (when a vaccine becomes available)?
Feedback about Future COVID-19 Vaccine Programs	• What challenges do you think there might be to provide a COVID-19 vaccine in your community? In Black communities in the U.S.?• Where and how do you think people would be most comfortable getting a COVID-19 vaccine in Black communities?• What do you think about creating online discussion groups or community events where people from your community describe their concerns about the vaccine and their experiences in getting the vaccine?
Social Influences	• Who or what sources would you trust most to give you information and advice/guidance in your community around a COVID-19 vaccine?• Think about the people you know, such as your family, friends, partners, and acquaintances. How much do you think people you know would approve of you getting a COVID-19 vaccine? Why?• Who in your social circle do you think would disapprove of you getting the COVID-19 vaccine? Why?
Ideas about Community Campaigns for COVID-19 Vaccines	• If we were to create a campaign to promote COVID-19 vaccination for people in Black communities, what messages would you recommend? What should we tell people about a COVID-19 vaccine? What could someone say to you to make you want to be vaccinated? What would you need to know about the vaccine to make you want to be vaccinated?• How would you react to hearing testimonials about Black people who got vaccinated or stories of Black people who got COVID-19?• What other ideas do you have for promoting the COVID-19 vaccine to people in Black communities?

Two interviewers (a mixed-race woman of African and European descent [SR] and a woman of South Asian descent [PG]) completed training provided by a White female PhD-level psychologist (LMB) and an Asian female PhD-level psychologist (LD). Both interviewers had prior qualitative research training or experience and research interests on the study topic: one was a graduate student, and one was a baccalaureate-level research assistant. They were trained with the interview protocol, including an overview of qualitative methods and interview techniques, and completed two mock interviews each and received feedback on two practice interviews each. Interviewers completed each interview independently (i.e., the interview included only the interviewer and the interviewee). Interviewers and ALP participants had no prior relationship, but stakeholder participants knew both interviewers and the study team from ongoing CAB meetings for this study. All interviews were completed in one setting (i.e., no repeated interviews) via phone and lasted about 60 minutes each. Interviewers took detailed notes during the interview and audio-recorded the interview for transcription. Transcripts were not returned to any participant for comments, while stakeholder participants provided feedback on the qualitative findings during regular CAB meetings.

Data analysis

Sociodemographic information from the ALP survey was linked to the interview narratives. We used Stata 17 to obtain basic descriptive statistics of the qualitative interviewees. All qualitative interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data analysis was conducted in Dedoose. We followed standard procedures for direct content analysis [22], in which we developed the initial codebook based on existing research and from directly interpreting the meaning of the interview transcripts. Specifically, two experienced team members (LMB and LD) read all transcripts and developed a draft codebook based on the research questions, relevant literature, and the interpretation of the narratives. Two coders (LD and PG) coded six transcripts to test the codebook and make necessary updates through iterations. Codes were generally in three groups: vaccination intentions, barriers to vaccination, and facilitators to (i.e., system-level strategies to improve) vaccination. The coding categories were based on the semi-structured interview guide and domains of interest. Two interviews were used to establish inter-coder reliability. The average Cohen’s kappa across all codes was 0.80 (SD = 0.21, range 0.30–1.00), the average prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) was 0.96 (SD = 0.41, range 0.89–1.00), and the average percent agreement had a mean of 98% (SD = 2%, range 94%-100%). For the Cohen’s kappa, two codes fell below 0.50 (0.30 and 0.49, respectively) due to the low frequency of applying these two codes in the two transcripts used for establishing reliability; hence, the two coders had additional training and discussion around these two codes before proceeding with coding all transcripts. One coder (PG) then coded all remaining transcripts and held a weekly discussion with a senior team member (LD) to resolve any coding questions. Following prior research [23], we used the following categories to indicate the relative frequency of each code: most or almost all (61%-100%), some (21%-60%), and a few (1%-20%). Given that the interviews were semi-structured and used open-ended questions, providing exact percentages for codes could be misleading as a lack of discussion of a theme did not mean agreeing or disagreeing with the idea.

Results

Sample characteristics

Table 2 shows the sample demographic characteristics of the ALP participants and stakeholder participants. ALP participants were on average middle-aged; the majority were female and college educated. Stakeholders were on average middle-aged, and the majority were male and working in community settings and/or health-related fields.

Table 2

Sociodemographic Characteristics of American Life Panel (ALP) participants and stakeholder participants (N = 29).

	ALP Participants (n = 24)	Stakeholder Participants (n = 5)
Demographic	M (SD) or N (%)	M (range) or N (%)
Mean age (years)	47.46 (10.33)	44.40 (32–60)
Self-reported female gender	19 (79%)	1 (20%)
Sexual minority	3 (13%)	2 (4%)
Black/African American	24 (100%)	5 (100%)*
Hispanic or Latino	2 (8%)	0 (0%)
Less than bachelor’s degree	10 (42%)	n/a
Currently employed	16 (67%)	5 (100%)
Annual family income		n/a
less than $35,000	5 (21%)
$40,009 to $99,999	12 (50%)
$100,000 and above	7 (29%)
Married/living with a partner (vs. separated, divorced, single)	6 (25%)	n/a

Note. *One stakeholder identifies as sub-Saharan African.

COVID-19 vaccination intentions

Participants mentioned a number of drivers for lower vaccination intentions, including discussing a general distrust of health care that stemmed from the U.S. Public Health Service study on syphilis at Tuskegee, other forms of medical experimentation, and personal experiences with the medical system as well as general concerns around vaccines. This mistrust was commonly exhibited in terms of a “wait and see” approach, such that participants said that they were reluctant to be “the first one in line” (62-year-old female; education, training and library occupation) to get vaccinated but that they might be willing to get vaccinated in the near future. Most participants discussed waiting until they had an opportunity to get additional specific information on the vaccines’ efficacy and safety, both formally, through healthcare providers and scientists, as well as through observations of the physical reactions of others who had received the vaccine in terms of side effects and adverse events. The more that other people they knew received the vaccines and were not adversely affected, the more willing they would be to get vaccinated themselves. For example, participants said: “We don’t know what [the vaccine is] going to do. Let them figure it out for a little while and see what happens. Then, we’ll think about it. Right now, no.” (45-year-old female; personal care and service occupation); and “There is nothing that is going to convince me… I’ll be sitting and waiting to see what happens to everybody else, regardless of race” (49-year-old female; community and social services occupation)

Most participants said that their attitudes had not changed since the U.S. 2020 presidential election. However, a few participants described changing attitudes following the 2020 election in several different scenarios. First, some reported a better outlook for the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out after the election. For example, one participant said: “[Because] there’s now competency leading the effort and really smart bright people who are committed to getting folks vaccinated as quickly as possible” (57-year-old male stakeholder; sexual health/HIV prevention services). Another said: “Since the election, I think that my attitude had changed quite sufficiently because the government at that before the election wasn’t willing to do anything about it.” (72-year-old female; healthcare support occupation).

A few participants reported a change toward a more negative view of the COVID-19 vaccines due to growing mistrust: “Since the 2020 election, my opinion has grown even more, leery of the vaccination. And that’s not due to President Trump because I proudly am a supporter of President Trump. But I just think that kind of like there’s something under, underlying situations. I guess it just doesn’t like they go over too well. I think there’s more to it, to the vaccine, and I don’t trust it.” (41-year-old female; community and social services occupation)

Consistent with the “wait and see” approach, a few participants interviewed later in the course of this study described changing their minds due to time passing and witnessing few, if any, incidences of immediate negative reactions or short-term side effects—and, thus, increased trust in the vaccine: “I would say that right now, people are changing their minds. So it’s looking more favorable than it was a few months ago.” (40-year-old female; healthcare support occupation); and “I don’t get vaccines in general, not specifically against COVID… Recently, since they have so many people have been getting the vaccine, people that I know, and so far they’ve been fine… We don’t know the long-term effect, but I feel comfortable now, getting it whenever it’s been made available to me” (50-year-old female; healthcare support occupation).

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccination

Table 3 presents illustrative quotes for each theme and subcategories for structural barriers to vaccine access and systemic racism as barriers to COVID-19 vaccination.

Table 3

Barriers to COVID-19 vaccination from semi-structured interviews (n = 29).

Barriers	ALP Participants (n = 24)	Stakeholder Participants (n = 5)
Structural Barriers
Access barriers: physical/ transportation	“They [government] want people to drive 25 minutes to get the vaccine versus just being able to go down the street. Because a lot of people in those communities, because the lower-income community don’t have transportation to get to the vaccine, so you have to bring the vaccine to them.” (50-year-old female, healthcare support)	“[A challenge is] having to have a car…I didn’t see a walk-up option yesterday where I went to get a vaccine.” (32-year-old male, senior project manager)
Access barriers: financial	“I think that [access to healthcare or insurance would] be a big, big issue because a lot of African Americans don’t have health insurance. And now with the COVID they have no job. So the relief that the government sends only partially helps, doesn’t help completely.” (72-year-old female, healthcare support)	“If they have to access it through a medical care facility or they have to access it through their insurance company that I think that could definitely be a barrier for a lot of folks unless it comes through [Medicaid]” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Access barriers: technology	“You hear on the news that people don’t even have a computer to do homeschooling. Those are the people I’m thinking about right now. How do you…get to those people?” (51-year-old female, computer & mathematical occupation)	“The last week I had somebody who is an I.T. expert telling me how complicated it was for him to sign up to get vaccinated. . .so I am wondering, okay, so if this guy could not use the computer or phone to sign up for an appointment, how much more other people who are less knowledgeable about computers [would need to sign up]?” (60-year-old female, patient navigator at a hospital)
Other barriers (e.g., access to information, time away from work)	“Then there’s just the availability because I work…most things are done during business hours, right?” (40-year-old female, health support)	“If folks knew where the vaccination sites were within their area…if I saw or heard more of that on the radio or people had access to more information, then that might make it easier.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center).
Systemic racism as a barrier that leads to mistrust
Racism as a root cause of mistrust	“Experiences of racism, or just inequality period, has affected or will affect people’s decision to take the vaccine or not just because when you feel like you’re always being attacked or no one’s listening to you or no one hears you or no one sees you all of a sudden, here’s something for you, you feel a little wary about it.” (45-year-old female, education, training, and library)“We don’t fare well when it comes to experimentation or implementation of medication. I have family members who were directly affected from the Tuskegee experiments…the government doesn’t really care about what happens to Black people…” (56-year-old male, business and financial operations)	“They don’t trust it at all. They think that we’re being injected. It’s like Tuskegee. That’s the Tuskegee eugenics. All of these different things are coming up for a lot of the community that I’m interacting with… generations haven’t forgotten.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)“I don’t believe Black people were the in the thought of the vaccine [development]. [Black people are] hardly ever the first thought for health things like that in the U.S.” (32-year-old male, senior project manager)
Mistrust of the vaccine itself (lack of confidence in safety/efficacy)	“The only thing that’s kind of standing in the way… it’s the side effects, and if the shot is actually gonna do what it’s supposed to.” (40-year-old female, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance)	“The disadvantages are the unknown side effects or the side effects that are not as [well-studied]” (32-year-old male, senior project manager)
Misinformation/myths about the COVID-19 vaccines	“I believe the vaccine was likely already being experimented or while [the scientists] were creating or studying the COVID” (52-year-old female, computer and mathematical)	“I’ve heard that the COVID-19 vaccine is supposed to have nano bites in it that are going to control us like zombies. I’ve heard that it’s an experiment. I have heard that it’s out to kill people in particular Black folks and Brown folks.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Mistrust of government	“The government doesn’t really care about what happens to Black people. I’m not interested in being another guinea pig or statistic.” (56-year-old male, business and financial operations)	“Even still historically in the Black community, it’s still traumatized, it still hurt, it’s still going to mistrust not only the government and medical physicians or medical providers, but I also think, the way that the last four years rolled out with Trump didn’t help.”(40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Mistrust of pharmaceutical industry	“I don’t say that they are trying to exterminate Blacks, but if that’s side effects of their making money, I think they would be happy with that.” (56-year-old male, business and financial operations)	“When you think of pharmaceuticals or those who are putting out these vaccines or drugs… they’re thinking about the wide-scale of how we can help the most people and not people who are affected the most” (33-year-old male, research analyst)
Mistrust of healthcare providers/systems	“A lot of people do not know if the person standing next to them is a racist or if your health care [provider] is a racist, you don’t know they have your best interest at heart due to the color of your skin” (43-year-old female, healthcare practitioner and technical)	“…racism and the lack of cultural responsiveness in health care for Black communities and other communities of color definitely plays a little in the vaccine and how we engage in that system” (32-year-old male, senior project manager)

Structural barriers to vaccine access

Almost all ALP participants and stakeholders discussed various types of structural barriers to vaccine access, including physical access barriers (e.g., transportation issues), financial barriers, and digital and technological barriers. As one stakeholder pointed out, “access is going to be the number one barrier” (32-year-old male; senior project manager). Some interviewees cited physical access barriers frequently, including a lack of adequate transportation access. Most interviewees mentioned potential financial access barriers, primarily due to a lack of health insurance coverage, if there was a cost associated with obtaining the COVID-19 vaccines. A few interviewees described access barriers related to availability, such as employment and caretaking responsibilities during standard business hours. Some interviewees mentioned access barriers related to technology, including a lack of digital access and difficulty for some population segments in navigating online systems.

Systemic racism as a barrier that leads to mistrust

Table 3 presents illustrative quotes for systemic racism as the root cause of mistrust and each type of mistrust. Mistrust was perceived to be a key barrier to vaccination. Interviewees described different types of mistrust that underlie low confidence in the COVID-19 vaccines, including misinformation and myths about COVID-19 vaccines, mistrust of government (e.g., elected officials, government information around COVID-19), medical mistrust (of healthcare organizations, providers, and the vaccines themselves), and mistrust of pharmaceutical companies. Systemic racism was discussed as the root cause of the different types of mistrust.

While a few participants said that personal experience of discrimination might not play a role in vaccination decisions given that, as one interviewee said, “the vaccine was not made for a particular person of a particular color” (59-year-old male; healthcare practitioner and technical occupation), almost all pointed to historical and persistent systemic racism as the root cause of mistrust of the COVID-19 vaccines. Participants and stakeholders cited various examples of racism, mistreatment, experimentation, and injustice from the past by government, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare providers and systems, and researchers and scientists, as factors that influence Black Americans’ decisions for vaccination and research (e.g., clinical trial) participation. A few participants stated that they did not want to be a “guinea pig.” Some interviewees also said that mistrust in Black communities could be explained by persistent and unaddressed injustice and racism across different institutions and sectors of society. For example, one interviewee said: “Everything basically goes together [because Black people are] living in a place that allows the police to brutally kill your people. You see at the hospitals they’re doing the same thing.” (46-year-old female; healthcare practitioner and technical occupation).

Participants and stakeholders noted mistrust of government as a reason behind low vaccine confidence and vaccination intention. Some said that the government and politicians were telling the truth about the COVID-19 cure and vaccines: for example, one said that “they [the government and politicians] are controlling it. Now I believe that if there’s an actual cure, maybe they said don’t cure it” (49-year-old female; community and social services occupation). They also discussed the untrustworthiness of the government for Black communities specifically, citing historical and persistent mistreatment and racism. Some mentioned specific politicians that are untrustworthy and having monetary motives for promoting the COVID-19 vaccines; “when Trump has something to do with it, it’s about the money” (54-year-old female; community and social services occupation). Some talked about the government’s role in the vaccine development process as allowing a rushed process; “they probably rushed the development and probably were allowed to skip on some of the normal precautions that would be taken for medications to come to market.” (56-year-old male; business and financial operations occupation).

Mistrust of pharmaceutical companies was also common. Most participants and stakeholders said that the pharmaceutical companies are profit-driven and do not have the best interests of Black people. In addition, some interviewees discussed mistrust of healthcare providers and healthcare systems, including anticipated discrimination and negative personal experiences with healthcare providers. For example, one participant cited: “seeing family members have procedures that didn’t need to be had that resulted in either long-term side effects or death, so it’s just there’s a lot of mistrust, not just in the history books, but also personally” (45-year-old female; education, training, and library occupation). Some stakeholders cited providers’ lack of cultural competence, sensitivity, and responsiveness in practice as a reason for mistrust of healthcare providers and systems. Some participants discussed that they felt doctors do not have patients’ best interests in mind when making healthcare decisions.

Participants and stakeholders also discussed mistrust of the vaccines themselves, reporting a lack of confidence in the safety and efficacy of the newly developed COVID-19 vaccines. Most interviewees were concerned that the complete list of side effects, particularly the long-term side effects, were not yet known. Relatedly, some participants expressed concerns about a lack of clinical trial data showing the side effects and supporting the vaccines’ effectiveness due to a rushed vaccine development process. For example, one stated that “it has not been tested for a long period of time… and the clinical trials were rushed” (45-year-old female; personal care and service occupation). Some participants also voiced that they were most concerned about the efficacy of the vaccines. For example, one participant said: “the only thing that’s kind of standing in the way [of getting the vaccine], I keep saying this, it’s the side effects and the shot is actually going do what it’s supposed to” (40-year-old female; building and ground cleaning and maintenance occupation). Another participant expressed concerns that “they [doctors] don’t know if this vaccine is going to work on the new strain, which seems to be more easily transmitted, not necessarily more deadly, but definitely more easily transmitted (56-year-old male; business and financial operations occupation).

In addition, some participants and stakeholders mentioned the presence of COVID-19 related misinformation as a driver for low vaccine confidence. For example, one said: “family members and friends who have fear and anxiety think they heard something about somebody that heard something about somebody else, and then they’re giving information based upon maybe a little bit of some facts, but most of it is from fear and anxiety of what they think or believe” (38-year-old female; healthcare support occupation). A few participants expressed beliefs consistent with misinformation, such as the virus that causes COVID-19 disease is man-made, and the vaccines were already being made when the virus was created.

Finally, a few interviewees discussed concerns regarding privacy and security of any personal information that was mandatory for vaccination. For example, one stakeholder said: “you have to think about the implications of me coming to [the vaccination] location. And you’re asking me for my name, my address, my social. I don’t know what else they ask” (60-year-old female; patient navigator at a hospital).

System-level intervention strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccines in black communities

Table 4 shows the overarching system-level intervention strategies recommended and the trusted and preferred information sources, contents, and modes for promoting COVID-19 vaccines in Black communities. An overall recommendation was that systemic racism and past injustices should be acknowledged as a justifiable reason for mistrust in messages that promote vaccines. Relatedly, a few interviewees emphasized the need for structural changes to address racism and stop inequities and injustices: “America will have to address a much larger issue first, which is racism. And with that, that also calls for a conversation about inequality. And with inequality, there also comes for what is it that you can do to undo that pain and suffering that the Black community has built for countless generations.” (29-year-old male; management occupation).

Table 4

System-level interventions strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccines from semi-structured interviews (n = 29).

Domains	ALP Participants (n = 24)	Stakeholder Participants (n = 5)
Overarching system-level intervention strategies
Acknowledging systemic racism	“I think one of the ways it could be addressed is definitely would have to be a mass public service campaign. First of all, emphasizing that ‘Hey, we understand why you are apprehensive. We understand that these things that happened in the past to your community and other communities. But what we want to show you now is that you will be able to get the vaccine free. In addition, you have access to any follow-up care that you might need, you have 24-hour resources, hotlines, people in the community.’ People actually need to get out in the community and talk to our community.” (57-year-old female, business and financial operations)	“[I] encourage [that] because it’s acknowledging the reality of the world that we live in and the history.” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Improving trustworthiness of institutions (e.g., government)	“When people start seeing changes, then they’ll be able to be more susceptible to accepting a vaccine or anything. But right now it’s at a standstill because nothing has changed… they would have to see that the government and the police forces in all these different places are doing something different. They’re putting something in place, stop the people from being mistreated.” (46-year-old female, business and financial operations)	“People want to know exactly what’s happening. Not sugar coat it, not cookie cut it. Just be real. I think that if honesty and integrity were more a part of how the government runs, this problem [of vaccine hesitancy] wouldn’t be as big as it is.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Tailored approach	“… we don’t all think alike, we are not all bunched up. We are all not thugs, we are not ignorant. Just like I’m gonna say for Black folks, we are all not the same… when you have a group of people that have been through so much in our lives, we are leery of everything, especially when it comes to living or dying.” (54-year-old female, community and social services)	“There’s a lot of factors I think that goes into if someone in the Black community, which is not a monolith, so if specific sects take it, or different parts of the community get it when their turn comes.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Use vaccination as an opportunity for healthcare and social service engagement	“Just having the resources readily available without having to turn anyone away…being able to service the community… for the homeless community like a free meal or something like that” (41-year-old female, community and social services)	“…to use vaccination as an opportunity. If people aren’t signed up for health care to get them into health care. So people see a win, win us, and you get the free vaccine and sign up for the ACA at the same time” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Preferred messaging contents
Transparent/honest messaging	“…just having somebody who is fully knowledge[able] about the vaccine and that is not going to withhold information…Just be completely transparent and [we] will be more safe, feel more safer [and] trusting of what you think. And then show us more research.” (45-year-old female, personal care and service)	“I think it’s important to have accurate information, really clear messaging about the efficacy of the vaccine: why it’s important, where you can get it, that there’s no cost, all [of] those things that people go a long way to, uh, helping Black folks access to that vaccine.” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Detailed information in accessible language	“Clear, concise and messages that are not so what can I say…in more layman’s terms. Because a lot of the information that you get from, by the companies and stuff like that, just things that people just don’t really understand sometimes.” (45-year-old female, personal care and service)	“So give it to me in, in layman’s terms, we’re not doctors. And then, make it accessible…But like short, sweet, concise, and something that, I think that because that’s, that’s mostly what I’m getting from talking to people.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Research findings (e.g., side effects, long-term effects)	“I would want to hear the long-term impact, the research that has been done, the true facts of what is in the vaccine and how it will impact in the going forward.” (42-year-old female, computer and mathematical)	“Being honest and true about [the efficacy] and what that really means for people. So people see the 95 or the 77 they’re like, ‘Oh, I don’t want to. It’s only 77% effective…’” Like explaining what that means. (32-year-old male, senior project manager)
Trusted information sources
Black scientists/ researchers	“If they see that maybe like a prominent Black figure is at the core front of this experiment, then the Black community, we’ll see it as like a sign of greatness. So ‘Oh wow, if this Black scientist had a hand in creating this history-making vaccination, then it really has to be good for us.’ There’s no wrong with it because a Black woman helped, and she’s trying to help her community…” (41-year-old female, community and social services)	“If that doctor [Dr. Corbett] sat and talked to community folks or sat in and had interviews that were recorded with celebrities or what not, but had that conversation, that dialogue, I think that a lot of our communities could understand that that [the vaccine] was developed by one of our own.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Known, trusted figures (e.g., Black celebrities)	“If you have people trusted in the Black community actually taking the vaccine, that would be a powerful nexus tool” (57-year-old female, business and financial operation).	“A lot of these pop culture people, the celebrities, they would be great to kind of lead some of these messages.” (32-year-old male, senior project manager)
Local community leaders	“More of the leaders in Black communities come out and get vaccinated. More of them show out and say to tell us that ‘this is a process that I went through. This is how I feel after I got it… This is how you can go and get it. And this is how you may feel after you get it.” (32-year-old female, healthcare practitioner and technical)	“I think also the messengers need to be, folks need to be Black folks in the community and not just one celebrity type person. The pastor and local politicians and teachers and people that are respected in community who are Black, who can speak to their folks, so there needs to be a variety of messengers.” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Trusted doctors/researchers	“Regardless of who you are, you have questions. And someone from the medical field, the science field, would be better equipped to answer those questions instead of giving their, instead of giving their personal beliefs or biblical beliefs.” (56-year-old female, education, training and library)	“Personally, I would, I want Fauci to call me and let me know like what’s going on. If Dr Fauci could call myself on and be like, “Hey, [retracted], check it out. This is what the deal is.” Woo, yeah, I would definitely, like, get it from Fauci.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
Preferred vaccine access points
Having a variety of access points	“More the merrier. That’s more outlets for people to get vaccinated because some people don’t like to go to hospitals, but they feel better getting it in the church or in the supermarket or in the pharmacy rather than the hospital itself.” (49-year-old female, community and social service)	“…places that feel safe for them…it could be a library, [a] church, it could be a community center. Can be a local, community clinic that people really see kind of set up on a big hospital chain or whatever. A mobile unit, it can be places like that. There needs to be a variety of ways that people are able to access the vaccine, not just one size fits all.” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Medical facilities	“You feel more comfortable [getting the vaccine at a hospital], so I can monitor as I’m back and forth into my doctor’s office and see how you’re reacting.” (45-year-old female, personal care and service)	“Wherever they are already receiving care, if they are receiving care, would be [where to get the vaccine] because they were already kind of creating that relationship, whether it be their PCP or sometimes some other specialty provider.” (33-year-old male, research analyst)
Non-medical facilities: community organizations & faith-based organizations	“…probably better received because the organizations that’s outside of healthcare they are geared towards helping [individuals]. They offer like food and different things that they need. So they’re more trusting in that arena as opposed to the health care arena.” (46-year-old female, Healthcare practitioner and technical)“For some people, [faith-based organizations] would work because whatever the pastor says, they’re gonna do.” (56-year-old female, education, training, and library)	“I would say places like places of worship… going to a church or a place where community members convene, and they’re being invited by a community member they know, or community members are going to participate in the process of vaccinations, somehow. I think that people will show up and be vaccinated.” (60-year-old female, patient navigator at a hospital)
Non-medical facilities: convenient locations (e.g., local pharmacies, drive-throughs)	“That’s more outlets for people to get vaccinated because some people don’t like to go to hospitals, but they feel better getting it in the church or in the supermarket or in the pharmacy rather than the hospital itself.” (49-year-old female, community and social services)	“Another site I went to, we were able to drive up. There’s no drama whatsoever, so it’s very easy process. So I think making it as easy as possible for people, is something that it’s like a decision in my mind.” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Preferred mode of information
Online webinar/ forum/ Q&A	“…while it was a webinar, they did have Q&A at the end. And they did encourage people to ask questions. And that is the only way that I think people will start to have some trust.” (45-year-old female, education, training, and library)	“I think that it would give people a voice to kind of say how they feel, but also would give them that buy-in…I think that should be on social media or maybe Zoom….I think it should be accessible to everyone… So I think that’s the only thing is just that different people having to agree that they can disagree.” (40-year-old male, coordinator at an LGBT center)
In-person promotion	“…just set up in their communities. And if necessary, go door-to-door.” (62-year-old female, education training, and library)
News media outlets (e.g., T.V. network)	“[On what can support the vaccine roll-out] probably a lot of advertising on local radio channels. Local news channel…. Just really advertisement, education, getting the word out.” (50-year-old female, healthcare practitioner/technical)	“I think in terms of news sources, probably MSNBC like a Rachel Maddow, or Tiffany Cross or Joy Reid."(57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Additional specific system-level intervention strategies
Describe vaccination as empowerment	“…makes a person feel like they’re included and that they are helping the community to be better by [being vaccinated]. And you feel like you had a hand in helping decrease the spread of COVID-19 in your community. It gives a positive feeling.” (38-year-old female, healthcare support)	“I think [vaccination] speaks to the power of the individuals to protect themselves” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services)
Discuss vaccination as a choice	“All Black people are not the same. Everybody has their own individual mind.” (51-year-old female, computer and mathematical)	“…it puts the choice in the persona’s hand, but then it also brings (the choice) back to their communities…I like that” (32-year-old male, senior project manager)
Incentives may have limited appeal	“If there is a way to financially compensate us for going to get vaccinated, a lot of the Black community will go 9 times out of 10.” (32-year-old female, healthcare practitioner and technical)	“…there could be a dinner when you get it in the grocery stores and things that will incentivize people for vaccines… when you get the vaccine, I think that [a little gift card] would be a great incentive for Black Communities” (32-year-old male, senior project manager)

These structural changes are needed to increase the trustworthiness of the government in Black communities, which ultimately influence vaccine acceptance: “When people start seeing changes, then they’ll be able to be more susceptible to accepting a vaccine or anything.” (46-year-old female; healthcare practitioner and technical occupation). In addition, interviewees discussed that the Black community is not a monolith. Therefore, it is crucial to tailor the messages in terms of the content, information source, and mode for the specific community, based on research to understand reasons behind low vaccine confidence and to identify trusted sources of information and preferred mode in each community. Taking a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient: for example, one stakeholder said: “there needs to be a variety of ways that people are able to access the vaccine, not just one size fits all” (57-year-old male, sexual health HIV prevention services).

Interviewees said that the content of the vaccine messages and communication strategies to promote vaccination should address the main reasons for low vaccine confidence and vaccination intention, including concerns about harm and side effects, with specific information and data from clinical trials. Participants expressed interest in hearing honest and transparent messages about the vaccines, including both good and bad outcomes from the trial, and a more detailed and well-rounded discussion about the research results in layperson terms, to increase trust and reduce concerns around the vaccines. For example, one interviewee said: “…just having somebody who is fully knowledge about the vaccine and that is not going to withhold information…Just be completely transparent and [we] will be more safe, feel more safer [and] trusting of what you think. And then show us more research” (45-year-old female; personal care and service occupation). Some participants suggested promoting Black scientists’ involvement in the vaccine development process, mentioning Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett at the National Institutes of Health, who helped to develop the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

Interviewees suggested several trusted information sources to promote trust in the vaccines and encourage broader trust in clinical trials, including the need to hear from Black healthcare providers and Black scientists involved in the vaccine development process (such as Dr. Corbett) and influencers in Black communities (e.g., celebrities) as well as testimonials by Black community members or trusted leaders who share their vaccination experience. For example, one interviewee said: “… Black representation is present in the creation of the vaccination. I hear that one of the scientists that was partially responsible for creating or working on the vaccine was a Black descent or African American herself. So I think that if Black people are aware of that, they are more prone to or more willing to go along with the vaccination” (41-year-old female; community and social services occupation). Those perceived to have ulterior motives are perceived as not trustworthy.

Interviewees made suggestions for the preferred modes of information, including online presentations, Q & A sessions, and community forums. As one interviewee said: “for the younger generation, social media mixed with a face that they know. That means teaming up with like, the Cardi B’s of the world…you have a local face that’s well known and disseminating information…” (40-year-old female; healthcare support occupation). Participants also said that it is crucial for these sessions to be led by healthcare providers, especially Black healthcare providers, and that the sessions contain opportunities for dialogue and questions to be answered. Participants also suggested that providing in-person promotion (e.g., going door to door) and using print material can help to address access barriers related to technology and digital platforms.

Regarding preferred vaccine access points, interviewees said that there needs to be vaccination access across a diverse array of medical facilities and non-medical community organizations and settings. Interviewees were mixed in preferences for places to access the vaccines (e.g., medical organizations, including hospitals and clinics, and non-medical, community-based organizations like community centers and faith-based organizations). They emphasized the importance of offering vaccinations at conveniently located places that are trusted, where community members have established relationships, and there is medical staff onsite to administer the vaccines and respond in the case of reactions. For example, one participant said: “…more the merrier. That’s more outlets for people to get vaccinated because some people don’t like to go to hospitals, but they feel better getting it in the church or in the supermarket or in the pharmacy rather than the hospital itself” (49-year-old female; community and social services occupation). Some mentioned considering a breadth of places where different population segments already access health or other services. Some interviewees also described ways of addressing other access barriers: ensuring that the cost of COVID-19 vaccines is covered for all individuals; providing public transportation (e.g., community shuttles), or partnering with rideshare companies to increase transportation access; and offering more flexible scheduling and vaccination site hours of operation.

When asked about their reactions to specific strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccines, interviewees discussed the perception that the vaccines could lead to greater freedom, including resuming social activities like visiting loved ones and traveling. Some interviewees felt that a monetary (e.g., gift card, cash incentive) or non-monetary (e.g., free meal for unhoused individuals) might incentivize vaccination uptake: “…just being able to service the community or offer incentives… it can be like a monetary incentive. It can be like a one-time stipend or like the monetary incentive. Maybe for some, like the homeless community, a free meal” (41-year-old female; community and social services occupation). However, a few had concerns around the underlying subtext and implications of providing an incentive for vaccination; for instance, the question of vaccine safety and efficacy if individuals had to be compensated to receive it. For example, one participant said: “You’re pimping out your body for money, and that’s not okay” (35-year-old female; business and financial operations occupation). Others said that those incentives would be ineffective in influencing behavior. Relatedly, some interviewees reported perceptions that the vaccines would eventually become mandatory, but many of them felt that such a requirement would cause them to seek workarounds, including alternative employment should their current employer mandated the vaccine.

Discussion

The current paper reports qualitative findings from semi-structured interviews with Black Americans who showed low vaccine confidence as well as stakeholders representing different Black communities during the early stage of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. We documented low COVID-19 vaccination intentions (e.g., the need to wait and see) and specific concerns around the COVID-19 vaccines (e.g., about rapid development and side effects), which are consistent with similar qualitative research in racially/ethnically diverse populations (including Black Americans) and quantitative evidence that showed greater COVID-19 vaccine related mistrust in Black Americans compared to White Americans [11,12,24,25]. Consistent with prior literature on disparities related to the vaccination intentions for COVID-19 as well as seasonal influenza, HPV, and future HIV vaccines in Black Americans and other racial/ethnic minority groups [11,26-30], our data also showed substantial and multiple structural barriers to vaccination (e.g., transportation, financial, technology barriers that block vaccine access), as well as the negative impact of persistent systemic racism on vaccination intentions among Black Americans. Concerns of financial resources and costs have been documented for underserved communities for vaccine access as well as COVID-19 related prevention and coping [31,32]. Participants and stakeholders in the present study also identified system intervention strategies, from acknowledging systemic racism and improving the trustworthiness of institutions to preferred messaging contents, information sources and mode, and access points. While there were some novel ideas (e.g., discussing vaccination as empowerment), many of these strategies are consistent with the extant literature on strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination update in Black communities and other racial/ethnic minority populations [11,12] as well as strategies to acknowledge medical mistrust in other health conditions such as HIV [13,17].

Based on our qualitative findings and quantitative findings reported elsewhere [19], we engaged community stakeholders to identify a set of public health messaging strategies and recommendations to help increase vaccination in Black communities. Many of the specific communication strategies and efforts recommended by the interview respondents were subsequently implemented to promote COVID-19 vaccination in minority and underserved communities. These strategies and recommendations also may be relevant going forward as boosters are disseminated—and may inform how community-based efforts can successfully increase vaccination intentions and decrease mistrust for future vaccination efforts (e.g., future HIV vaccines), for other health conditions, and around new medical technologies for future public health crises beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is important to note that the strategies listed below should be embedded in long-term investment in capacity building and community engagement and based on a genuine effort to increase the trustworthiness of various institutions, including government, healthcare organizations, and public health systems. Public health and government officials should invest in creating long-term, equitable, and committed partnerships with underserved communities such as Black communities to increase their trustworthiness.

Recommendations for increasing vaccine confidence

First, public health campaigns and messages to promote COVID-19 vaccines should acknowledge systemic racism and the justifiable multifaceted mistrust before providing information about the vaccines. It is important to understand and acknowledge mistrust as an understandable and justified response to personal experiences of racism and historical injustice. When exploring mistrust, it may be helpful to ask open-ended questions in a nonconfrontational, nonjudgmental way while providing accurate information.5

Second, public health messages and community strategies should be honest and transparent, using accessible and layperson language, and tailored toward the specific community based on research and understanding of the trusted information sources and the preferred contents and mode of communication. Our qualitative results suggest that people prefer a well-rounded discussion of the evidence so far, acknowledging both what we know and what we do not know about the vaccines and discussing both positive and negative results from clinical trials. This is a particularly imperative way to show transparency and honesty when conducting outreach to marginalized communities, such as people living with HIV, sexual and gender minorities, and immigrant communities.

Third, public health campaigns that promote the COVID-19 vaccines should provide opportunities for an open dialogue with scientists and health care providers who are trusted and credible sources for the relevant health information and can answer questions from community members. Formats such as online forums and Q&A sessions should be strongly considered. Our results emphasized the importance of leveraging trusted messengers and multiple dissemination mechanisms to share information transparently. Giving people the opportunities to ask questions is viewed as a way to build trust and increase buy-in for the vaccines.

Fourth, a tailored approach should be taken to create public health campaigns and messages to promote vaccination in specific communities. This approach means that the first step should be to recognize the diversity in Black communities across the country and do the necessary research to identify the trusted messengers and the preferred mode of information in the community. Specific strategies may be helpful, such as describing the vaccination as an empowerment process and emphasizing the individual’s choice.

Recommendations for increasing equity in vaccine access

The interviews were conducted before the vaccines were made available to all adults in the U.S. Therefore, issues with vaccine access were less discussed in early interviews, and problems with vaccine equity becomes increasingly striking as we concluded the interviews. However, our results offer suggestions for preferred vaccine access and strategies to resolve the most salient access issues. First, it is essential to provide multiple and different types of vaccine access points for a specific underserved community. Our findings show that people have mixed preferences for vaccination sites, as many are not comfortable getting vaccinated in medical settings due to medical providers’ lack of trustworthiness, while others may feel most trusting towards their own doctors with whom they have a relationship. Therefore, offering more access points increase the chance of removing specific barriers.

Interviewees described a variety of structural barriers to vaccine access, from physical to digital barriers. Therefore, the process for vaccine access should be simplified and streamlined to maximize availability (e.g., allow for walk-in appointments). Different types of barriers should be removed, including lack of transportation (e.g., free ride, public transportation to vaccination sites) and difficulty navigating the online booking system. Ideally, the vaccination sites should meet people where they live and work to reduce access barriers. Our interviewees also recommended using the vaccination appointment as an opportunity to connect community members with health care and social service access.

Limitations

A main limitation of the current study was the small sample size, and thus, we could not explore variation by meaningful subgroups (e.g., perspectives of healthcare workers vs. other types of participants). Relatedly, the qualitative sample of ALP participants was over-represented by those self-identified as female gender, while the sample of stakeholders was over-represented by those self-identified as male gender. As such, we were unable to compare gender differences in the experience of barriers to vaccination as well as other factors that influence vaccination intentions. It will be important for future studies with larger sample sizes to document challenges to vaccination related attributed to racial identity as well as other vulnerabilities and marginalized identities such as socioeconomic status and sexual/gender minority status. Such data would help to guide the process of tailoring messages for specific subgroups affected by health inequities in general and during the pandemic. Another limitation is the low willingness among eligible ALP survey respondents to participate in the qualitative interviews (only about 30% of the eligible survey respondents completed the interviews). Because we invited those who endorsed the lowest vaccine intentions in the ALP survey to participate in the interviews, such individuals may have been more skeptical about vaccine-related research and thus may have decided not to participate. The qualitative sample appears to include more individuals with a healthcare and social service occupational background, potentially due to higher motivation for research participation in this group than individuals with other occupations.

Conclusions

The current study presented qualitative data on drivers for Black Americans’ low vaccination intentions and preferred strategies during the early stage of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out in the U.S. A unique contribution of the current data and analysis is that they are focused on Black communities; in additional to stakeholders, the participants of this study were selected from a nationally representative sample of Black Americans based on their low vaccination intentions. These findings highlighted the importance of acknowledging and addressing mistrust and increasing efforts to improve equitable vaccine access as ways to improve vaccine confidence, vaccination intentions, and vaccination rates in Black communities. The recommended strategies may inform the roll-out of COVID-19 booster shots and improve the health care system’s response not only to the current public health crisis but to future crises as well.

20 Oct 2021

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,

Peter A Newman, 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. When reporting the results of qualitative research, we suggest consulting the COREQ guidelines: http://intqhc.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/6/349. In this case, please consider including more information on the number of interviewers, their training and characteristics; and please provide the interview guide used.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified: 1) whether the ethics committee approved the verbal/oral consent procedure, 2) why written consent could not be obtained, and 3) how verbal/oral consent was recorded. If your study included minors, please state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians in these cases. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We are grateful to all the study participants and members of the study’s community stakeholder advisory committee for their guidance throughout this project. Funding for this research was provided by gifts from RAND supporters and income from operations. The funders were not involved in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; or the preparation of this manuscript.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Funding for this research (awarded to LMB) was provided by gifts from RAND supporters and income from operations. The funders were not involved in the study design; data collection, analysis, and interpretation; or the preparation of this manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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 manuscript provides a clear and detailed look at vaccine intentions and mistrust among Black Americans. One of the strengths of this manuscript is its capture of vaccine attitudes across time (e.g. when the vaccines were not yet available and when they had begun to be rolled out). The presentation of qualitative findings is well organized and well-supported in the manuscript. As the authors acknowledge, there is little discussion of intersectionality in either the ALP participant or stakeholder groups due to the lack of diversity in the small sample. This would be an interesting perspective to explore at a later date. Given the thorough examination of vaccine attitudes and intentions (related primarily to mistrust and access barriers) accompanied by actionable strategies, I would not hesitate to recommend this manuscript for publication.

Reviewer #2: This paper is writing about an important topic. I hope to make suggestions that would strengthen the presentation of the research.

Introduction

- Good overview of the issues. References literature that could be used to strengthen the discussion.

Materials and methods:

- Explain what the RAND American Life Panel is and explain what type of participants are recruitable from it. I noticed, for example, that there were quite a few health and social service professionals and that likely has an impact on the data that was gathered. Given the international audience of the journal, this data source is important to explain.

- There is no information provided about the procedures for the interview or who conducted the interviews. The latter point important, given the issues raised about mistrust and systemic racism.

- Provide information on ethics considerations or approval.

- Data analysis: This paper needs to locate the data analysis in a known model for qualitative data analysis and provide more detail about the procedure. This is important for establishing the trustworthiness (referencing qualitative research quality criteria) of the analysis.

Findings:

- It seems that the analysis focused on identifying data relevant to barriers and strategies (?facilitators) for vaccine acceptance. I would suggest that the literature review should have included a reference to the barriers/facilitators literature and this would have been the foundation for a clearer presentation of findings that aligned with those known barriers/facilitators. In addition, I believe it would shape the discussion of barriers as a description of problems in the system, rather than problems with the people trying to access the system. For example, what is identified a “convenience” barrier could also be identified as an availability barrier. The issue is not that people don’t want to be inconvenienced, the issue is that services are not available at times and locations that are accessible.

- The organization of findings into structural barriers and mistrust stemming from systemic racism is unclear. First, the concerns about privacy and security mentioned at the end of the structural section are not a structural barrier. They are another facet of mistrust that is being discussed in the next section. Second, mistrust, which I assume is evoked as another barrier, is locating the problem with the persons trying to access the system. I believe the barrier more accurately identified here is historical and systemic racism in healthcare and other systems that is the foundation for that mistrust. I suggest rethinking the organization of the findings, possibly by using an established framework for healthcare barriers/facilitators.

- As with the barriers, I think it is useful to explicitly position the strategies as system interventions that reduce the barriers located in the system.

- It is difficult for the reader to appreciate whether reported findings represent a majority or minority of participants and whether it represents different participants.

o The first issue is unclear because of the use of terms like “a few,” “a handful”; consider using language that is more explanatory (as has been done in several places) and using consistent terms across the findings section. I am aware that the authors may wish to avoid quantitative language in the description of findings; identifying an analytic approach would clarify the appropriate language for representing the data.

o The second issue is unclear because some quotes have a participant identified and others do not. In addition, there are sections of findings reported without any quotations to support them and no indication of whether they are representing things that were discussed by one, most, half or some portion of participants. All quotations should have identifying information with them so the reader has a context for the finding and knows they represent multiple voices. Ideally, all findings have quotations to substantiate them, to demonstrate the credibility of the analysis.

- Given the distribution of gender in the sample, were there any findings that suggested gendered experiences of barriers and facilitators? There seems to be a missed opportunity to consider gendered experiences in the analysis, discussion and limitations.

Tables:

- Table 3 and 4: These tables contain the quotations that would be useful to see in the text of the findings. The sources of quotations are not identified and that repeats the credibility problem in the finding section. A better use of these table would be to present the results of analysis that identified specific barriers and facilitators/strategies.

Discussion:

- End of page 17 there is a superscript 5 – is there a missing note 5?

- The discussion does not make sufficient use of extant literature to situate the findings of the study; the only research cited is previous papers published from the same study. There are useful sources referenced in the introduction. Literatures addressing Black communities and vaccine acceptance, or health care access more generally would be useful here. HIV testing? Diabetes management? HPV vaccines? Linking to these literatures will also strengthen the link between this study and future directions for public health.

- Limitations: is focused on who isn’t included but should also address how the findings of this study are relevant and useful as a contribution to knowledge.

Acknowledgements:

- Please explain “gifts from RAND supporters”; is this a donation? There may be standard language the funder suggests for crediting their contribution.

**********

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: Kate Allan

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.

18 Jan 2022

We are grateful for the helpful and incisive reviews and for this opportunity to submit a revised version. We have carefully considered the reviewers’ helpful comments and have revised the paper in accordance. Our response and the changes made to the manuscript are detailed below (marked with * after each point).

Editor’s Comments:

1. As the reviewer indicates, the introduction does well in contextualizing the important issues addressed, however the methods section needs more specifics, including citations, about the qualitative approach used and how the data were collected (e.g., by whom) and analyzed (more than providing quantitative metrics of reliability). (See journal submission guidelines: Qualitative research studies should be reported in accordance to the Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist.)

*We have provided additional details according to the COREQ guidelines. The COREQ checklist is uploaded as part of the resubmission for review.

2. More consistent use of identifiers for quotations is also needed. In the bigger picture, as the reviewer suggests, some of the findings appear to be approached from an individual level that suggests a deficit model, and might be more profitably approached by engaging more fully with a structural perspective.

*We have ensured that all quotes (regardless of phrases or full quotes) have identifiers. We have also edited the results and discussion according to Reviewer 2’s suggestions to engage a structural perspective.

3. Finally, the discussion section would be much improved by considering some of the rich literature used in the introduction and discussing the findings in the context of other research. The one reference in the discussion is to a study from the same project; this is a missed opportunity to discuss your findings in the context of related research.

*We have expanded the discussion section to include a discussion of findings in the context of existing research (page 19, paragraph 2). In addition, we have updated the literature review to reflect most current national data on vaccination rates in Black Americans as well as key literature published since our submission (page 3, paragraph 1; page 4, paragraph 3 to page 5 paragraph 1).

Reviewer #1:

1. This manuscript provides a clear and detailed look at vaccine intentions and mistrust among Black Americans. One of the strengths of this manuscript is its capture of vaccine attitudes across time (e.g., when the vaccines were not yet available and when they had begun to be rolled out). The presentation of qualitative findings is well organized and well-supported in the manuscript. As the authors acknowledge, there is little discussion of intersectionality in either the ALP participant or stakeholder groups due to the lack of diversity in the small sample. This would be an interesting perspective to explore at a later date. Given the thorough examination of vaccine attitudes and intentions (related primarily to mistrust and access barriers) accompanied by actionable strategies, I would not hesitate to recommend this manuscript for publication.

*Thank you very much for this positive feedback.

Reviewer #2:

This paper is writing about an important topic. I hope to make suggestions that would strengthen the presentation of the research.

Introduction:

1. Good overview of the issues. References literature that could be used to strengthen the discussion.

*Thank you. we have strengthened the discussion section following the reviewer’s suggestions.

Materials and methods:

2. Explain what the RAND American Life Panel is and explain what type of participants are recruitable from it. I noticed, for example, that there were quite a few health and social service professionals and that likely has an impact on the data that was gathered. Given the international audience of the journal, this data source is important to explain.

*We have added more information describing the American Life Panel on page 5 end of the page to page 6 paragraph 1: “Participants were drawn from the RAND American Life Panel (ALP), a nationally representative internet panel of U.S. adults aged 18 and older. The ALP currently has over 3000 active members, who have been recruited from several other surveys and directly for the panel using multiple modes (e.g., in-person, telephone, and mail) and probability-based sampling methods, including address-based samples and telephone (random-digit dial) samples. Full details of the ALP’s methodology are available in the technical documentation (1).”

Individuals who expressed high mistrust and low vaccination intention were invited to participate in the qualitative interviews. It is possible that those who are in health and social service professions were interested in participating. We have noted this as a limitation in the discussion section (see page 23 paragraph 1).

3. There is no information provided about the procedures for the interview or who conducted the interviews. The latter point important, given the issues raised about mistrust and systemic racism.

*We provided this information, per COREQ checklist (see uploaded checklist for review), on page 8 paragraph 2: “Two interviewers (a mixed-race woman of African and European descent [SR] and a woman of South Asian descent [PG]) completed training provided by a White female psychologist (LMB) and an Asian female psychologist (LD)…. The community advisory board and all co-authors reviewed and provided feedback on the interview guide.”

4. Provide information on ethics considerations or approval.

*We provided this information on page 6 paragraph 2: “RAND’s Institutional Review Board approved the study design and protocol.”

5. Data analysis: This paper needs to locate the data analysis in a known model for qualitative data analysis and provide more detail about the procedure. This is important for establishing the trustworthiness (referencing qualitative research quality criteria) of the analysis.

*Thank you for this suggestion. We have now provided more details about the qualitative data analysis on page 9 paragraph 2: “We followed standard procedures for direct content analysis (2), in which we developed the initial codebook based on existing research and from directly interpreting the meaning of the interview transcripts. Specifically, two experienced team members (LMB and LD) read all transcripts and developed a draft codebook based on the research questions, relevant literature, and the interpretation of the narratives. Two coders (LD and PG) coded six transcripts to test the codebook and make necessary updates through iterations.”

Findings:

6. It seems that the analysis focused on identifying data relevant to barriers and strategies (?facilitators) for vaccine acceptance. I would suggest that the literature review should have included a reference to the barriers/facilitators literature and this would have been the foundation for a clearer presentation of findings that aligned with those known barriers/facilitators. In addition, I believe it would shape the discussion of barriers as a description of problems in the system, rather than problems with the people trying to access the system. For example, what is identified a “convenience” barrier could also be identified as an availability barrier. The issue is not that people don’t want to be inconvenienced, the issue is that services are not available at times and locations that are accessible.

*In response to this reviewer’s suggestion, we have added more relevant literature on barriers/facilitators for COVID vaccines in underserved populations, including papers published more recently (since our original submission). We have also explicitly discussed vaccine access issue as a barrier. These changes are made to the introduction on pages 3-5.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have renamed “convenience” to “availability” throughout the manuscript.

7. The organization of findings into structural barriers and mistrust stemming from systemic racism is unclear. First, the concerns about privacy and security mentioned at the end of the structural section are not a structural barrier. They are another facet of mistrust that is being discussed in the next section. Second, mistrust, which I assume is evoked as another barrier, is locating the problem with the persons trying to access the system. I believe the barrier more accurately identified here is historical and systemic racism in healthcare and other systems that is the foundation for that mistrust. I suggest rethinking the organization of the findings, possibly by using an established framework for healthcare barriers/facilitators.

*Following the reviewer’s suggestions, we have made the following changes:

1) We have now integrated the barrier about privacy and security concerns into mistrust section (now page 16, paragraph 1). We renamed the mistrust section as systemic racism as a barrier that leads to mistrust, and discussed mistrust as a consequence of systemic racism. We have re-organized the paragraphs about systemic racism and mistrust on page 13-16.

2) We have considered using an established framework for healthcare barriers/facilitators, but ultimately decided not to use one because there is not a good fit. Most of these frameworks are from implementation science and focus on healthcare providers/systems and organizations, and barriers at multiple levels. In addition, from an analytic perspective, we did not use a framework, but instead allowed the themes to emerge from the narratives.

8. As with the barriers, I think it is useful to explicitly position the strategies as system interventions that reduce the barriers located in the system.

*Thank you for this suggestion. We have renamed “strategies” as “system-level interventions” in the results and discussion sections as well as Table 4.

9. It is difficult for the reader to appreciate whether reported findings represent a majority or minority of participants and whether it represents different participants.

a) The first issue is unclear because of the use of terms like “a few,” “a handful”; consider using language that is more explanatory (as has been done in several places) and using consistent terms across the findings section. I am aware that the authors may wish to avoid quantitative language in the description of findings; identifying an analytic approach would clarify the appropriate language for representing the data.

*Thank you for this suggestion. We have now updated the results section using the following categories (page 10, paragraph 1): “Following prior research (3), we used the following categories to indicate the relative frequency of each code: most or almost all (61%-100%), some (21%-60%), and a few (1%-20%). Given that the interviews were semi-structured and used open-ended questions, providing exact percentages for codes could be potentially misleading as a lack of discussion of a theme did not mean agreeing or disagreeing with the idea.”

b) The second issue is unclear because some quotes have a participant identified and others do not. In addition, there are sections of findings reported without any quotations to support them and no indication of whether they are representing things that were discussed by one, most, half or some portion of participants. All quotations should have identifying information with them so the reader has a context for the finding and knows they represent multiple voices. Ideally, all findings have quotations to substantiate them, to demonstrate the credibility of the analysis.

*Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. We included identifiers for all quotes. Note that there were a few phrases that we quoted the exact phrasing used by participants in our description of results without including identifiers because those were not formally listed as quotes. We recognize that this can be confusing, so we have now added identifiers to all quotations.

We also clarify that all findings do have quotations to substantiate them. For the section on “COVID-19 vaccination intentions,” we directly included all the relevant quotes in the text because it is manageable to do so. For other sections (i.e., barriers, system intervention strategies), we included the majority of relevant quotes in Tables 3 and 4 because we find the table format is efficient in presenting quotes to illustrate each sub-finding and by interviewee types (ALP participants vs. stakeholders).

10. Given the distribution of gender in the sample, were there any findings that suggested gendered experiences of barriers and facilitators? There seems to be a missed opportunity to consider gendered experiences in the analysis, discussion and limitations.

*In our sample, most ALP participants were women (19 out of 24 interviewees) and most stakeholders are men (4 out of 5). We do not have sufficient data to do a formal comparison. We have added this as a limitation in the discussion (page 23 paragraph 1).

Tables:

11. Table 3 and 4: These tables contain the quotations that would be useful to see in the text of the findings. The sources of quotations are not identified and that repeats the credibility problem in the finding section. A better use of these table would be to present the results of analysis that identified specific barriers and facilitators/strategies.

*We included an identifier (age, gender, occupation) at the end of each quote, in Tables 3 and 4 as well as when quotes are directly included in the results section.

Given that there are many quotes that are relevant to present and illustrate each barrier and facilitator/strategy, we prefer to retain the format of including the majority of quotes in the Table format. The table format is also more efficient to list quotes from both ALP participants and stakeholders. However, If the editor prefers, we can integrate the quotes into the text.

Discussion:

12. End of page 17 there is a superscript 5 – is there a missing note 5?

*Thank you for spotting this. We have removed this and added the correct citation.

13. The discussion does not make sufficient use of extant literature to situate the findings of the study; the only research cited is previous papers published from the same study. There are useful sources referenced in the introduction. Literatures addressing Black communities and vaccine acceptance, or health care access more generally would be useful here. HIV testing? Diabetes management? HPV vaccines? Linking to these literatures will also strengthen the link between this study and future directions for public health.

*Thank you for this suggestion. We have now strengthened the discussion section in terms of better situating the findings in the extant literature (page 19, paragraph 2). We have also added more citations on health disparities in other types of vaccinations that the current results were in line with and could be informative for addressing these other health-related issues.

14. Limitations: is focused on who isn’t included but should also address how the findings of this study are relevant and useful as a contribution to knowledge.

*We have described the contribution of the study in the conclusion section (page 23, paragraph 1).

Acknowledgements:

15. Please explain “gifts from RAND supporters”; is this a donation? There may be standard language the funder suggests for crediting their contribution.

*Yes, this means donation from supporters, and this is the standard language for acknowledgement.

In summary, thank you for the helpful feedback and the opportunity to submit this revised version of our manuscript. We believe these additional changes have resulted in an improved paper. We would, of course, welcome further guidance on improving the manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Authors

References cited

1. Pollard MS, Baird MD. The RAND American Life Panel: Technical Description. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2017.

2. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-88.

3. Bogart LM, Cowgill BO, Sharma AJ, Uyeda K, Sticklor LA, Alijewicz KE, et al. Parental and home environmental facilitators of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among overweight and obese Latino youth. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(4):348-55.

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviews.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 Mar 2022

14 Apr 2022

Reviewer #2:

The revisions have strengthened the paper. Some suggestions that might strengthen it further:

1. I would encourage the authors to consider whether some of the in-text quotations are too truncated, making them poor representations of the ideas they are claimed to represent. Examples are on page 14 "looking for profit" and page 15 "fear and anxiety".

*Thank you for the additional suggestions. We have removed these short, truncated in-text quotations, and changed them into full quotations as appropriate (please see pages 13-16, marked version).

2. In-text quotations disappear after page 17. There are good quotations in the table that speak to the content, but it might be nice to include something in the latter half of the findings as it makes the findings section unbalanced.

*We have included selected exemplar quotes in text on pages 17-20 (marked version).

3. I would strongly recommend reconsidering the claim on page 22: “our results also indicated challenges that are attributed to racial identity and other vulnerabilities and marginalized identities such as socioeconomic status and sexual/gender identities.” There was no gender or sexual identity analysis visible in the results section, therefore, this reads as speaking beyond the results. The point is a good one but would be better identified as something to be pursued in future research. The findings do reference financial barriers and that could be discussed in the discussion, with support of relevant literature.

*We have revised the sentence (on gender or sexual identity) to discuss a future research direction (page 24, paragraph 3, marked version). In addition, we added a discussion point on financial barriers (page 21, paragraph 1, marked version).

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviews_R2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

21 Apr 2022

A Qualitative Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Mistrust in Black Americans: Recommendations for Vaccine Dissemination and Uptake

PONE-D-21-29026R2

Dear Dr. Dong,

Thank you for your receptiveness and revisions in response to the reviewer's comments. 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,

Peter A. Newman, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

25 Apr 2022

PONE-D-21-29026R2

A Qualitative Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Mistrust in Black Americans: Recommendations for Vaccine Dissemination and Uptake

Dear Dr. Dong:

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. Peter A. Newman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE