ArticleJAMA network open2020
Factors Associated With US Adults' Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccination.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 432 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
432 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 770 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review on vaccine developmental approaches: Evaluating efficacy, and addressing challenges of infectious diseases in the post-COVID-19 era.Virus research · 2026Pooled it
- COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in pediatrics: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments on Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccinations.The patient · 2025Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Vaccine hesitancy in context of COVID-19 in East Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Preferences for COVID-19 Vaccines: Systematic Literature Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Pooled it
- Global COVID-19 vaccine acceptance level and its determinants: an umbrella review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- The Role of Trust in COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Considerations from a Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccines: Rapid systematic review of the measurement, predictors, and preventive strategies.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Acute ischemic stroke and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia post COVID-19 vaccination; a systematic review.Journal of the neurological sciences · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of educational interventions on COVID-19 and vaccination attitudes among patients in Michigan: A prospective study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Trial
- Parental vaccination intentions following Florida's announced elimination of school vaccine mandates: The role of vaccine hesitancy.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Cross-Cultural Differences in Public Discourse on COVID-19 Vaccination in the United States and South Korea: Cross-Sectional Analysis Using Natural Language Processing.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- COVID-19 vaccine acceptability and determinants of hesitancy among adults in Lagos, Nigeria.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Cross-national patterns of COVID-19 vaccination coverage by vaccine type.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Prediction of factors influencing adults' likelihood of accepting any COVID-19 vaccination and their willingness to pay - a nation-wide discrete choice experiment among the general public from India.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Attitudes and beliefs regarding COVID-19 and COVID-19 Omicron booster vaccine among adults in the vaccine safety datalink, 2022-2023.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Review
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among the vaccinated: a cross-sectional survey.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine decision: What attitudes can we expect from young Poles in the future? A cross-sectional, representative survey.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2025Article
372 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The development of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine has progressed at unprecedented speed. Widespread public uptake of the vaccine is crucial to stem the pandemic. Objective: To examine the factors associated with survey participants' self-reported likelihood of selecting and receiving a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey study of a nonprobability convenience sample of 2000 recruited participants including a choice-based conjoint analysis was conducted to estimate respondents' probability of choosing a vaccine and willingness to receive vaccination. Participants were asked to evaluate their willingness to receive each hypothetical vaccine individually. The survey presented respondents with 5 choice tasks. In each, participants evaluated 2 hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines and were asked whether they would choose vaccine A, vaccine B, or neither vaccine. Vaccine attributes included efficacy, protection duration, major adverse effects, minor adverse effects, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process, national origin of vaccine, and endorsement. Levels of each attribute for each vaccine were randomly assigned, and attribute order was randomized across participants. Survey data were collected on July 9, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Average marginal component effect sizes and marginal means were calculated to estimate the relationship between each vaccine attribute level and the probability of the respondent choosing a vaccine and self-reported willingness to receive vaccination. Results: A total of 1971 US adults responded to the survey (median age, 43 [interquartile range, 30-58] years); 999 (51%) were women, 1432 (73%) White, 277 (14%) were Black, and 190 (10%) were Latinx. An increase in efficacy from 50% to 70% was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.06-0.09), and an increase from 50% to 90% was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18). An increase in protection duration from 1 to 5 years was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.05 95% CI, 0.04-0.07). A decrease in the incidence of major adverse effects from 1 in 10 000 to 1 in 1 000 000 was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08). An FDA emergency use authorization was associated with a lower probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.01) compared with full FDA approval. A vaccine that originated from a non-US country was associated with a lower probability of choosing a vaccine (China: -0.13 [95% CI, -0.15 to -0.11]; UK: -0.04 [95% CI, -0.06 to -0.02]). Endorsements from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (coefficient, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.07-0.11) and the World Health Organization (coefficient, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.08), compared with an endorsement from President Trump were associated with higher probabilities of choosing a vaccine. Analyses of participants' willingness to receive each vaccine when assessed individually yielded similar results. An increase in efficacy from 50% to 90% was associated with a 10% higher marginal mean willingness to receive a vaccine (from 0.51 to 0.61). A reduction in the incidence of major side effects was associated with a 4% higher marginal mean willingness to receive a vaccine (from 0.54 to 0.58). A vaccine originating in China was associated with a 10% lower willingness to receive a vaccine vs one developed in the US (from 0.60 to 0.50) Endorsements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization were associated with increases in willingness to receive a vaccine (7% and 6%, respectively) from a baseline endorsement by President Trump (from 0.52 to 0.59 and from 0.52 to 0.58, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, vaccine-related attributes and political characteristics were associated with self-reported preferences for choosing a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine and self-reported willingness to receive vaccination. These results may help inform public health campaigns to address vaccine hesitancy when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.