Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33079199›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Factors Associated With US Adults' Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccination.

Sarah Kreps, Sandip Prasad, John S Brownstein, Yulin Hswen, Brian T Garibaldi, Baobao Zhang, Douglas L Kriner

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
432citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
78.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

432 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 770 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. The Role of Trust in COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Considerations from a Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

372 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah KrepsDepartment of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Sandip PrasadAtlantic Medical Group, Morristown Medical Center, Morris Township, New Jersey.
John S BrownsteinDepartment of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Yulin HswenComputational Epidemiology Lab, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brian T GaribaldiJohns Hopkins Biocontainment Unit, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Baobao ZhangDepartment of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Douglas L KrinerDepartment of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Cornell University · USBoston Children's Hospital · USHarvard University · USJohns Hopkins University · USMorristown Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Patient Acceptance of Health CareVaccinationViral VaccinesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesInfluenza VaccinesViral Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33079199
PMCPMC7576409
OpenAlexW3092748982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.