Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35033030›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: a longitudinal household cross-sectional study.

Kausik Chaudhuri, Anindita Chakrabarti, Joht Singh Chandan, Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kausik ChaudhuriEconomics Division, Leeds University Business School, Leeds, LS2 9JT, England.
Anindita ChakrabartiEconomics Division, Leeds University Business School, Leeds, LS2 9JT, England.
Joht Singh ChandanInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B152TT, England.
Siddhartha BandyopadhyayDepartment of Economics, Birmingham Business School and Centre for Crime Justice and Policing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England. s.bandyopadhyay@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6771-7327
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe approved COVID-19 vaccines have shown great promise in reducing disease transmission and severity of outcomes. However, the success of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is dependent on public acceptance and willingness to be vaccinated. In this study, we aim to examine how the attitude towards public sector officials and the government impact vaccine willingness. The secondary aim is to understand the impact of ethnicity on vaccine-willingness after we explicitly account for trust in public institutions.

methodsThis cross-sectional study used data from a UK population based longitudinal household survey (Understanding Society COVID-19 study, Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study) between April 2020-January 2021. Data from 22,421 participants in Waves 6 and 7 of the study were included after excluding missing data. Demographic details in addition to previous survey responses relating to public sector/governmental trust were included as covariates in the main analysis. A logit model was produced to describe the association between public sector/governmental mistrust and the willingness for vaccination with interaction terms included to account for ethnicity/socio-economic status.

resultsIn support of existing literature, we identified those from BAME groups were more likely to be unwilling to take the COVID-19 vaccine. We found that positive opinions towards public sector officials (OR 2.680: 95% CI 1.888 - 3.805) and the UK government (OR 3.400; 95% CI 2.454-4.712) led to substantive increase in vaccine willingness. Most notably we identified this effect to vary across ethnicity and socio-economic status with those from South Asian background (OR 4.513; 95% CI 1.012-20.123) and possessing a negative attitude towards public officials and the government being the most unwilling to be vaccinated.

conclusionsThese findings suggests that trust in public sector officials play a key factor in the low vaccination rates particularly seen in at-risk groups. Given the additional morbidity/mortality risk posed by COVID-19 to those from lower socio-economic or ethnic minority backgrounds, there needs to be urgent public health action to review how to tailor health promotion advice given to these groups and examine methods to improve trust in public sector officials and the government.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesEthnic and Racial MinoritiesEthnicityHumansLongitudinal StudiesMinority GroupsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomVaccinationVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19EthnicitySARS-CoV-2Vaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID35033030
PMCPMC8760568
OpenAlexW4225253941

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.