Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35473486›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2022

Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: a qualitative analysis.

Sarah Denford, Fiona Mowbray, Lauren Towler, Helena Wehling, Gemma Lasseter, Richard Amlôt, Isabel Oliver, Lucy Yardley, Matthew Hickman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah DenfordPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. sarah.denford@bristol.ac.uk.
Fiona MowbrayNIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and King's College London, London, UK.
Lauren TowlerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Helena WehlingBehavioural Science Insight Unit, UK Health Security Agency, Porton Down, Salisbury, UK.
Gemma LasseterPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard AmlôtNIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Isabel OliverNIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at the University of Bristol, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Lucy YardleyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Matthew HickmanPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBUK Health Security AgencyUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18-29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

resultsA total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive.

conclusionParticipants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdolescentAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansUnited KingdomYoung AdultCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19QualitativeVaccine hesitancyYoung adults

Identifiers

PMID35473486
PMCPMC9039596
OpenAlexW4225247486

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.