COVID-19 Vaccine Perceptions and Differences by Sex, Age, and Education in 1,367 Community Adults in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 is a global pandemic and vaccination efforts may be impeded by vaccine hesitancy. The present study examined willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, the associated reasons for willingness/unwillingness, and vaccine safety perceptions in a cross-sectional assessment of community adults in Ontario. Methods: One thousand three hundred sixty seven individuals (60.6% female, mean age = 37.5%) participated in this study between January 15, 2021 and February 15, 2021. Perceptions of vaccine safety and reasons for willingness/unwillingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine were investigated using an online assessment. Perceptions were investigated in general and by age, sex and education using analysis of variance. Results: Overall, 82.8% of the sample reported they were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine and 17.2% reported they were unwilling. The three most common reasons for unwillingness were long-term side effects (65.5%), immediate side effects (60.5%), and lack of trust in the vaccine (55.2%). Vaccine willingness significantly differed by sex and education level, with female participants and those with less than a bachelor's degree being more likely to report unwillingness. Perception of COVID-19 vaccine safety was significantly lower (−10.3%) than vaccines in general and differed by age, sex and education, with females, older adults, and individuals with less than a bachelor's degree reporting lower perceived COVID-19 vaccine safety. Conclusion: In this sample of community adults, the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rate was less than one in five individuals, but with higher rates in population subgroups. Targeting public health messaging to females and individuals with less than bachelor's degree, and addressing concerns about long-term and immediate side effects may increase vaccine uptake.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".