Kimberly A Fisher1,2, Ngoc Nguyen3, Kathleen M Mazor4,3. 1. Department of Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School, UMMHC - University Campus, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA. Kimberly.Fisher@umassmemorial.org. 2. Meyers Health Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the UMass Chan Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, MA, USA. Kimberly.Fisher@umassmemorial.org. 3. Meyers Health Care Institute, a joint endeavor of the UMass Chan Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health, Worcester, MA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School, UMMHC - University Campus, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Commonly cited as the most trusted source of information about COVID-19 vaccines, healthcare providers have an important role in promoting COVID-19 vaccination 1, 2. While a healthcare provider recommendation is associated with greater likelihood of being vaccinated against COVID-193, there is limited understanding of lay beliefs about providers’ knowledge of COVID-19 vaccines and reasons for promoting vaccination.
OBJECTIVE
To assess lay beliefs about doctors’ knowledge of and reasons for promoting COVID-19 vaccination and to examine the association between beliefs and COVID-19 vaccination status.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of English-speaking, US-based, adult members of the Prolific online research panel between January 03 and February 17, 2022. With a multi-step member verification process at the time of enrollment4, Prolific has been shown to provide higher quality data than other online panels5. We restricted the sample to panel members who identified as White, Black, or Latino and oversampled Blacks and Latinos given the previously high levels of reported COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in these groups6. Respondents received $1.50. Items assessed COVID-19 vaccination status, beliefs about doctors’ expertise and motivations related to the COVID-19 vaccines, and views on doctors in general. Response options were dichotomized into agree (strongly/somewhat) and disagree (strongly/somewhat). We computed frequencies and percentages and used chi-square testing to examine differences in perceptions of doctors according to vaccination status.Respondent characteristics are shown in Table 1. Of the 1039 respondents, 806 (77.6%) were vaccinated and 233 (22.4%) were unvaccinated against COVID-19 at the time of the survey.
Table 1
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents
Characteristic
OverallN = 1039 (%)
VaccinatedN = 806 (%)
UnvaccinatedN = 233 (%)
Age
Less than 24
215 (20.8)
180 (22.4)
35 (15.1)
25–34
260 (25.1)
211 (26.3)
49 (21.1)
35–44
276 (26.7)
209 (26.0)
67 (28.9)
45–54
159 (15.4)
107 (13.3)
52 (22.4)
55–64
95 (9.2)
71 (8.8)
24 (10.3)
65+
30 (2.9)
25 (3.1)
5 (2.2)
Gender
Male
426 (41.2)
339 (42.3)
87 (37.7)
Female
592 (57.3)
449 (56.0)
143 (61.9)
Other
15 (1.5)
14 (1.7)
1 (0.4)
Race/ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino
312 (30.1)
268 (33.3)
44 (18.9)
Black/African American
321 (30.9)
227 (28.2)
94 (40.3)
White
405 (39.0)
310 (38.5)
95 (40.8)
Education
High school or less
250 (24.1)
165 (20.5)
85 (36.6)
Some college
507 (48.9)
391 (48.6)
116 (50.0)
4-year college or higher
280 (27.0)
249 (30.9)
31 (13.4)
Marital status
Married or living with a partner
441 (42.5)
335 (41.6)
106 (45.5)
Other
597 (57.5)
470 (58.4)
127 (54.5)
Region of residence
South
480 (46.3)
359 (44.7)
121 (51.9)
West
209 (20.2)
169 (21.0)
40 (17.2)
Northeast
176 (17.0)
143 (17.8)
33 (14.2)
Midwest
171 (16.5)
132 (16.4)
39 (16.7)
Political affiliation
Democrat
508 (48.9)
445 (55.3)
63 (27.0)
Independent
248 (23.9)
175 (21.7)
73 (31.3)
Republican
134 (12.9)
78 (9.7)
56 (24.0)
No political affiliation
126 (12.1)
87 (10.8)
39 (16.7)
Other
22 (2.1)
20 (2.5)
2 (0.9)
Employment
Employed
535 (51.6)
412 (51.2)
123 (53.0)
Unemployed
175 (16.9)
137 (17.0)
38 (16.4)
Student
133 (12.8)
117 (14.5)
16 (6.9)
Homemaker
76 (7.3)
48 (6.0)
28 (12.1)
Disabled
46 (4.4)
35 (4.3)
11 (4.7)
Retired
44 (4.2)
35 (4.3)
9 (3.9)
Other
28 (2.7)
21 (2.6)
7 (3.0)
Experienced financial stress
Never
239 (23.1)
191 (23.8)
48 (20.6)
Rarely
250 (24.2)
192 (23.9)
58 (24.9)
Sometimes
293 (28.3)
228 (28.4)
65 (27.9)
Frequently
253 (24.4)
191 (23.8)
62 (26.6)
Overall health
Poor
50 (4.8)
37 (4.6)
13 (5.6)
Fair
206 (19.8)
167 (20.7)
39 (16.8)
Good
459 (44.2)
353 (43.8)
106 (45.7)
Very good
250 (24.1)
192 (23.8)
58 (25.0)
Excellent
73 (7.0)
57 (7.1)
16 (6.9)
Overall mental health
Poor
129 (12.4)
107 (13.3)
22 (9.4)
Fair
279 (26.9)
229 (28.4)
50 (21.5)
Good
311 (30.0)
250 (31.1)
61 (26.2)
Very good
212 (20.4)
151 (188)
61 (26.2)
Excellent
107 (10.3)
68 (8.4)
39 (16.7)
Missing values < 0.6% of the sample for all characteristics
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Survey RespondentsMissing values < 0.6% of the sample for all characteristicsRespondents’ views of doctors differed significantly according to vaccination status (Fig. 1; p < .001 for all comparisons). Unvaccinated respondents were significantly less likely than vaccinated respondents to agree that most doctors “are well informed” (71.4% vs 94.5%) and “know how to evaluate the evidence” (60.8% vs 88.3%) about COVID-19 vaccines. Unvaccinated respondents were significantly more likely than vaccinated respondents to agree that most doctors “don’t know about problems people have had after getting the COVID-19 vaccines” (51.5% vs 19.4%) and “can’t make an informed recommendation because the vaccines are so new” (65.2% vs 21.5%). More unvaccinated respondents agreed that most doctors “are too influenced by the drug companies making the vaccines” (72% vs 29%), “are saying what they have been told to say about the vaccines” (75.1% vs 39.3%), and “get some financial benefit from getting more of their patients vaccinated” (58.4% vs 22.3%) compared to unvaccinated respondents, respectively.
Figure 1
Beliefs about doctors according to COVID-19 vaccination status.
Beliefs about doctors according to COVID-19 vaccination status.Unvaccinated respondents were less likely to agree with positive statements about doctors in general. The difference between unvaccinated and vaccinated respondents was greater for COVID-19 vaccine–specific items than for the items assessing respondents’ general views of doctors (Fig. 1). Among the respondents with a personal doctor (n = 663), there was no significant difference in the mean doctor rating between vaccinated and unvaccinated respondents (7.46/10 vs 7.26/10; p = .28).
DISCUSSION
In this study of lay beliefs about doctors’ knowledge of and reasons for promoting COVID-19 vaccination, we found surprisingly high rates of agreement with negative statements related to physicians’ knowledge and motivations around COVID-19 vaccines. Despite evidence establishing healthcare providers as the most trusted source of information about the COVID-19 vaccines 1, 2, approximately one-third of respondents overall somewhat or strongly agreed that most doctors get financial benefit from getting their patients vaccinated, are too influenced by the drug companies making the vaccines and are saying what they are told to say about the COVID-19 vaccines. This highlights a need for clear communication regarding the lack of financial incentives to physicians specifically related to COVID-19 vaccines, and regarding conflicts of interest in general. It also suggests that physicians should consider being explicit about these influences when communicating with their patients about the COVID-19 vaccines. While it is obvious to doctors that they are not getting paid to get patients vaccinated, a substantial percentage of the population believes they are, which may weaken the impact of a doctors’ recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination.Unvaccinated respondents in this study had more negative views of doctors than vaccinated respondents overall. However, the difference was larger for COVID-19-specific items than for general items and there was no difference in the ratings of personal doctors between unvaccinated and vaccinated respondents suggesting that the more negative views of unvaccinated respondents are at least in part COVID-19 vaccine specific. Pervasive misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines may have contributed to negative views of doctors specifically in this domain, but causality is uncertain.This study has limitations. Our sample is not representative of the general US population; however, it is diverse on many important characteristics including race/ethnicity, geographic location, education, and political affiliation. Due to the cross-sectional design, we are unable to assess causality between respondents’ views of doctors and vaccination status or how these views developed or might be changed. It is unknown whether doing so would enhance the impact of a doctor’s recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination. Our study did not assess whether these findings apply to vaccines other than COVID-19.Although there is evidence that doctors are the most trusted source of information about COVID-19 vaccines, this study provides insights into specific beliefs that may undermine this trust and could hinder doctors’ efforts to promote COVID-19 vaccination.
Authors: Kimberly A Fisher; Sarah J Bloomstone; Jeremy Walder; Sybil Crawford; Hassan Fouayzi; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kimberly H Nguyen; David Yankey; Peng-Jun Lu; Jennifer L Kriss; Noel T Brewer; Hilda Razzaghi; Mehreen Meghani; Brian J Manns; James T Lee; James A Singleton Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 17.586