Dataset Information

Attitudes towards vaccines and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis-implications for public health communications in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine SARS-CoV-2 vaccine confidence, attitudes and intentions in Australian adults as part of the iCARE Study.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional online survey conducted when free COVID-19 vaccinations first became available in Australia in February 2021.

Participants

Total of 1166 Australians from general population aged 18-90 years (mean 52, SD of 19).

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: responses to question 'If a vaccine for COVID-19 were available today, what is the likelihood that you would get vaccinated?'.Secondary outcome: analyses of putative drivers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status and sources of trust, derived from multiple survey questions.

Results

Seventy-eight per cent reported being likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Higher SARS-CoV-2 vaccine intentions were associated with: increasing age (OR: 2.01 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.77)), being male (1.37 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.72)), residing in least disadvantaged area quintile (2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.37)) and a self-perceived high risk of getting COVID-19 (1.52 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.14)). However, 72% did not believe 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 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 per cent reported the intent to continue engaging in virus-protecting behaviours (mask wearing, social distancing, etc) postvaccine.

Conclusions

Most Australians are likely to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Key influencing factors identified (eg, knowing vaccine is safe and effective, and doctor's recommendation to get vaccinated) can inform public health messaging to enhance vaccination rates.

SUBMITTER: Enticott J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8724587 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNegative attitudes towards vaccines and an uncertainty or unwillingness to receive vaccinations are major barriers to managing the COVID-19 pandemic in the long-term. We estimate predictors of four domains of negative attitudes towards vaccines and identify groups most at risk of uncertainty and unwillingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in a large sample of UK adults.MethodsData were cross-sectional and from 32,361 adults in the UCL COVID-19 Social Study. Ordinary least squares regression analyses examined the impact of socio-demographic and COVID-19 related factors on four types of negative vaccine attitudes: mistrust of vaccine benefit, worries about unforeseen effects, concerns about commercial profiteering, and preference for natural immunity. Multinomial regression examined the impact of socio-demographic and COVID-19 related factors, negative vaccine attitudes, and prior vaccine behaviour on uncertainty and unwillingness to be vaccinated for COVID-19.Findings16% of respondents displayed high levels of mistrust about vaccines across one or more domains. Distrustful attitudes towards vaccination were higher amongst individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds, with lower levels of education, lower annual income, poor knowledge of COVID-19, and poor compliance with government COVID-19 guidelines. Overall, 14% of respondents reported unwillingness to receive a vaccine for COVID-19, whilst 23% were unsure. The largest predictors of both COVID-19 vaccine uncertainty and refusal were low-income groups (< £16,000, a year), having not received a flu vaccine last year, poor adherence to COVID-19 government guidelines, female gender, and living with children. Amongst vaccine attitudes, intermediate to high levels of mistrust of vaccine benefit and concerns about future unforeseen side effects were the most important determinants of both uncertainty and unwillingness to vaccinate against COVID-19.InterpretationNegative attitudes towards vaccines are a major public health concern in the UK. General mistrust in vaccines and concerns about future side effects in particular will be barriers to achieving population immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination. Public health messaging should be tailored to address these concerns and specifically to women, ethnic minorities, and people with lower levels of education and incomes.FundingThe Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583], the MARCH Mental Health Network funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1], and the Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z and 205407/Z/16/Z].

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine public views on COVID-19 vaccination and consider the implications for communications and targeted support.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingOnline and telephone nationally representative survey in Great Britain, January to February 2021.Participants4978 adults. Survey response rate was 84%, among the 5931 panellists invited.Main outcome measuresSociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, financial status), COVID-19 status, vaccine acceptance, trust in COVID-19 vaccination information sources, perceptions of vaccination priority groups and perceptions of importance of second dose.ResultsCOVID-19 vaccine acceptance (83%) was associated with increasing age, higher level of education and having been invited for vaccination. Acceptance decreased with unconfirmed past COVID-19, greater financial hardship and non-white British ethnicity; black/black British participants had lowest acceptance. Overall, healthcare and scientific sources of information were most trusted. Compared with white British participants, other ethnicities had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with lower educational attainment or financial hardship had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with no qualifications had higher trust in media and family/friends. While trust was low overall in community or faith leaders, it was higher among those with Asian/Asian British and black/black British ethnicity compared with white British participants. Views of vaccine prioritisation were mostly consistent with UK official policy but there was support for prioritising additional groups. There was high support for having the second vaccine dose.ConclusionsTargeted engagement is needed to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in non-white British ethnic groups, in younger adults, and among those with lower education, greater financial hardship and unconfirmed past infection. Healthcare professionals and scientific advisors should play a central role in communications and tailored messaging is needed for hesitant groups. Careful communication around vaccination prioritisation continues to be required.

Project description:Genetic modification of farm animals has not been well accepted by the public. Some modifications have the potential to improve animal welfare. One such example is the use of gene editing (i.e. CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)) to spread the naturally occurring POLLED gene, as these genetically hornless animals would not need to experience the painful procedures used to remove the horns or horn buds. The aim of the current study was to assess public attitudes regarding the use of GM to produce polled cattle. United States (US) citizens (n = 598), recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, were asked "Do you think genetically modifying cows to be hornless would be…", and responded using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = a very bad thing, 4 = neither good nor bad, 7 = a very good thing). Participants were then asked to indicate if they would be willing to consume products from these modified animals. We excluded 164 of the original 598 participants for not completing the survey, failing any of three attention check questions, or providing no or unintelligible qualitative responses. Respondents were then asked to provide a written statement explaining their answers; these reasons were subjected to qualitative analysis. Comparison of Likert scale ratings between two groups was done using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and comparisons between more than two groups were done using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test. More people responded that the modification would be good (Likert ≥ 5; 65.7%) than bad (Likert ≤ 3; 23.1%), and that they would be willing to consume products from these animals (Likert ≥ 5; 66.0%) versus not consume these products (Likert ≤ 3; 22.6%). Qualitative analysis of the text responses showed that participant reasoning was based on several themes including animal welfare, uncertainty about the technology, and worker well-being. In conclusion, many participants reported positive attitudes towards GM polled cattle; we suggest that people may be more likely to support GM technologies when these are perceived to benefit the animal.