MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3199357227 · doi:10.1101/2021.09.12.21263158

Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: Implications for public health communications in Australia

2021· preprint· en· W3199357227 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Enticott, Jaskirath Gill, Simon Bacon, Kim Lavoie, Daniel Epstein, Shrinkhala Dawadi, Helena Teede, Jacqueline Boyle

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalConcordia UniversityCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Logistic regressionDemographySocioeconomic statusDisadvantagedConfidence intervalEnvironmental healthPublic healthFamily medicineImmunologyPopulationDiseaseInternal medicineNursingInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To examine SARS-CoV-2 vaccine confidence, attitudes and intentions in Australian adults. Methods Nationwide survey in February-March 2021 of adults representative across sex, age and location. Vaccine uptake and a range of putative drivers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status, and sources of trust, were examined using logistic and Bayesian regressions for vaccines generally and for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Results Overall 1,166 surveys were collected from participants aged 18-90 years (mean 52, SD of 19). Seventy-eight percent reported being likely to receive a vaccine against COVID-19. Higher SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions were associated with: increasing age (OR: 1.04 95%CI [1.03-1.044]), being male (OR: 1.37, 95% CI [1.08 – 1.72]), residing in the least disadvantaged area quintile (OR: 2.27 95%CI [1.53 – 3.37]) and a self-perceived high risk of getting COVID-19 (OR: 1.52 95% CI [1.08 – 2.14]). However, 72% of participants did not believe that they were at a high risk of getting COVID-19. Findings regarding vaccines in general were similar except there were no sex differences. For both the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and vaccines in general, there were no differences in intentions to vaccinate as a function of education level, perceived income level, and rurality. Knowing that the vaccine is safe and effective, and that getting vaccinated will protect others, trusting the company that made it and getting vaccination recommended by a doctor were reported to influence a large proportion of the study cohort to uptake the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Seventy-eight percent reported the intent to continue engaging in virus-protecting behaviours (mask wearing, social distancing etc.) post-vaccine. Conclusions Seventy-eight percent of Australians are likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Key influencing factors identified in this study (e.g. knowing that the vaccine is safe and effective, getting a doctor’s recommendation to get vaccinated) can be used to inform public health messaging to enhance vaccination rates. Strengths and limitations of this study This research captured a large, representative sample of the adult Australian population across age, sex, location, and socioeconomic status. We have self-reported Australian uptake intentions and attitudes on general vaccines and COVID-19 vaccine, and intent to continue engaging in virus-protecting behaviours (mask wearing, social distancing etc.) post SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We examine a range of drivers and factors that may influence intent to get the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake, including vaccine confidence, demographics and socioeconomic status. The survey is based on established behavioural theories, and is the Australian arm of the international iCARE survey which to date has collected global comparative information from over 90,000 respondents in 140 countries. Our survey was only available in English, which may have led to an underrepresentation of ethnic groups, and participation was voluntary, so our sample may be prone to selection bias from those with more interest or engagement in COVID-19.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.250
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→