MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399971777 · doi:10.7759/cureus.63033

Barriers and Concerns that Contribute to Vaccine Hesitancy in Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) Individuals in Ontario, Canada

2024· article· en· W4399971777 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pria Nippak, Housne Begum, Wajiha Ahmed, Devi Santhikumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIndigenousEnvironmental healthFamily medicineDemographyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite research demonstrating the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, hesitancy is extremely common in minority communities. The purpose of this study was to identify key barriers and concerns that contribute to vaccine hesitancy in Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour (BIPOC) individuals and provide recommendations to address these barriers and concerns. METHODS: The study was an online cross-sectional survey conducted among 1491 BIPOC and Caucasian adults, recruited using social media networks in August-September 2021. The questionnaire consisted of five sections that probed concerns and attitudes contributing to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Respondents were mostly Caucasian males (75.7%) and the average age was 29.1 years. A higher proportion of BIPOC respondents received both doses (50.6%) than Caucasian respondents (36.4%). Out of the unvaccinated, a higher percentage of BIPOC respondents did not plan on getting vaccinated (17.1%) compared to Caucasian respondents (4.2%). BIPOC respondents preferred the Pfizer-BioNTech (34.1%) vaccine whereas Caucasian respondents preferred AstraZeneca (29.3%). The biggest concern BIPOC and Caucasian respondents had with COVID-19 vaccines were side effects (56.6% vs 54.4%, respectively). BIPOC respondents identified dependability as the next biggest concern after side effects. A higher percentage of BIPOC respondents were against getting vaccinated against COVID-19 (16% vs 1.2%) compared to Caucasian respondents. CONCLUSION: Among unvaccinated respondents, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was most evident in the BIPOC respondents compared to Caucasian respondents. Side effects, trustworthiness, and lack of information were identified as the three most common concerns surrounding vaccines in general. Increased accessibility to reliable and accurate vaccine information in various languages/dialects can raise awareness about COVID-19 vaccinations in BIPOC communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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