Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34194418›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2021

Vaccine Hesitancy and Rejection of a Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus in the United States.

Shu-Fang Shih, Abram L Wagner, Nina B Masters, Lisa A Prosser, Yihan Lu, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.8field-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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A systematic review.Journal of infection and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shu-Fang ShihDepartment of Health Administration, College of Health Professions, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States.
Abram L WagnerDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Nina B MastersDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Lisa A ProsserDepartment of Health Administration, College of Health Professions, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States.
Yihan LuDepartment of Epidemiology, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety (Ministry of Education), Fudan University School of Public Health, Shanghai, China.
Brian J Zikmund-FisherDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USVirginia Commonwealth University · USFudan University · CN

Funding

Characterizing parental beliefs to support optimization of vaccine introductionK01AI137123 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI WAGNER, ABRAM LUTHER · 2019 to 2023
$475k
NIAID NIH HHS K01 AI137123
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The arrival of the COVID-19 vaccine has been accompanied by increased discussion of vaccine hesitancy. However, it is unclear if there are shared patterns between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection, or if these are two different concepts. This study characterized rejection of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine, and compared patterns of association between general vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection. The survey was conducted online March 20-22, 2020. Participants answered questions on vaccine hesitancy and responded if they would accept the vaccine given different safety and effectiveness profiles. We assessed differences in COVID-19 rejection and general vaccine hesitancy through logistic regressions. Among 713 participants, 33.0% were vaccine hesitant, and 18.4% would reject a COVID-19 vaccine. Acceptance varied by effectiveness profile: 10.2% would reject a 95% effective COVID-19 vaccine, but 32.4% would reject a 50% effective vaccine. Those vaccine hesitant were significantly more likely to reject COVID-19 vaccination [odds ratio (OR): 5.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.39, 9.11]. In multivariable logistic regression models, there were similar patterns for vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection by gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and political affiliation. But the direction of association flipped by urbanicity (P=0.0146, with rural dwellers less likely to be COVID-19 vaccine rejecters but more likely to be vaccine hesitant in general), and age (P=0.0037, with fewer pronounced differences across age for COVID-19 vaccine rejection, but a gradient of stronger vaccine hesitancy in general among younger ages). During the COVID-19 epidemic's early phase, patterns of vaccine hesitancy and COVID-19 vaccine rejection were relatively similar. A significant minority would reject a COVID-19 vaccine, especially one with less-than-ideal effectiveness. Preparations for introducing the COVID-19 vaccine should anticipate substantial hesitation and target concerns, especially among younger adults.

Indexed as

COVID-19 VaccinesVaccination RefusalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesUrban PopulationVaccinesYoung AdultCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19demographydisease outbreakssurveys and questionnairesvaccines

Identifiers

PMID34194418
PMCPMC8236639
OpenAlexW3172985222

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.