Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34872796›Full record

ArticleVaccine2022

COVID-19 vaccine Mandates: An Australian attitudinal study.

Katie Attwell, Marco Rizzi, Lara McKenzie, Samantha J Carlson, Leah Roberts, Sian Tomkinson, Christopher C Blyth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: Attitudes and Effects on Holdouts in a Large Australian University Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Katie AttwellSchool of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia. Electronic address: katie.attwell@uwa.edu.au.
Marco RizziUWA Law School, The University of Western Australia, Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Lara McKenzieSchool of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Samantha J CarlsonSchool of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia.
Leah RobertsSchool of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Sian TomkinsonSchool of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Christopher C BlythWesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia; UWA Medical School, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rollout of vaccines against COVID-19 is prompting governments and the private sector to adopt mandates. However, there has been little conceptual analysis of the types of mandates available, nor empirical analysis of how the public thinks about different mandates and why. Our conceptual study examines available instruments, how they have been implemented pre-COVID, and their use for COVID-19 globally. Then, our qualitative study reports the acceptability of such measures in Western Australia, which has experienced very limited community transmission, posing an interesting scenario for vaccine acceptance and acceptability of measures to enforce it.

methodOur conceptual study developed categories of mandates from extant work, news reports, and legislative interventions globally. Then, our empirical study asked 44 West Australians about their attitudes towards potential mandatory policies, with data analysed using NVivo 12.

resultsOur novel studies contribute richness and depth to emerging literature on the types and varying acceptability of vaccine requirements. Participants demonstrated tensions and confusion about whether instruments were incentives or punishments, and many supported strong consequences for non-vaccination even if they ostensibly opposed mandates. Those attached to restrictions for disease prevention were most popular. There were similar degrees of support for mandates imposed by employers or businesses, with participants showing little concern for potential issues of accountability linked to public health decisions delegated to the private sector. Participants mostly supported tightly regulated medical exemptions granted by specialists, with little interest in religious or personal belief exemptions.

conclusionOur participants are used to being governed by vaccine mandates, and now by rigorous lockdown and travel restrictions that have ensured limited local COVID-19 disease and transmission. These factors appear influential in their general openness to COVID-19 vaccine mandates, especially when linked explicitly to the prevention of disease in high-risk settings.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAustraliaCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID34872796
PMCPMC8629747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.