27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 vaccination intention in the UK: results from the COVID-19 vaccination acceptability study (CoVAccS), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          To investigate factors associated with intention to be vaccinated against COVID-19 we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,500 UK adults, recruited from an existing online research panel. Data were collected between 14th and 17th July 2020. We used linear regression analyses to investigate associations between intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19 “when a vaccine becomes available to you” and sociodemographic factors, previous influenza vaccination, general vaccine attitudes and beliefs, attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19, and attitudes and beliefs about a COVID-19 vaccination. 64% of participants reported being very likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 27% were unsure, and 9% reported being very unlikely to be vaccinated. Personal and clinical characteristics, previous influenza vaccination, general vaccination beliefs, and beliefs and attitudes about COVID-19 and a COVID-19 vaccination explained 76% of the variance in vaccination intention. Intention to be vaccinated was associated with more positive general COVID-19 vaccination beliefs and attitudes, weaker beliefs that the vaccination would cause side effects or be unsafe, greater perceived information sufficiency to make an informed decision about COVID-19 vaccination, greater perceived risk of COVID-19 to others (but not risk to oneself), older age, and having been vaccinated for influenza last winter (2019/20). Despite uncertainty around the details of a COVID-19 vaccination, most participants reported intending to be vaccinated for COVID-19. Actual uptake may be lower. Vaccination intention reflects general vaccine beliefs and attitudes. Campaigns and messaging about a COVID-19 vaccination could consider emphasizing the risk of COVID-19 to others and necessity for everyone to be vaccinated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The theory of planned behavior

          Icek Ajzen (1991)
          Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

            Summary Background The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18–55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. Findings Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493–1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96–317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360–792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R 2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Perception of risk

              P Slovic (1987)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hum Vaccin Immunother
                Hum Vaccin Immunother
                Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics
                Taylor & Francis
                2164-5515
                2164-554X
                26 November 2020
                2021
                26 November 2020
                : 17
                : 6
                : 1612-1621
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Psychology, Keele University; , Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK
                [b ]Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London; , London, UK
                [c ]NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, King's College London; , London, UK
                [d ]School of Medicine, Keele University; , Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK
                [e ]Emergency Response Department Science and Technology, Public Health England, Behavioural Science Team; , Wiltshire, UK
                [f ]Centre for Implementation Science, King’s College London; , London, UK
                Author notes
                CONTACT Susan M. Sherman s.m.sherman@ 123456keele.ac.uk School of Psychology, Keele University; , KeeleST5 5BG, UK.
                [*]

                Sherman and Smith contributed equally to the work and are joint first authors.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6708-3398
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1277-2564
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1816-1676
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4440-0570
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7560-8924
                Article
                1846397
                10.1080/21645515.2020.1846397
                8115754
                33242386
                568b479c-5385-43fd-bdf0-09c7962918c9
                © 2020 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, References: 35, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Paper

                Molecular medicine
                hesitancy,beliefs,attitudes,barriers,vaccine,covid-19
                Molecular medicine
                hesitancy, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, vaccine, covid-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article