Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study

Williams, Simon; Armitage, Christopher J.; Dienes, Kim; Drury, John; Tampe, Tova

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277360

Journal article 554 views 71 downloads

Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study

Simon Williams

, Christopher J. Armitage, Kim Dienes

, John Drury, Tova Tampe

PLOS ONE, Volume: 18, Issue: 3, Start page: e0277360

Swansea University Authors: Simon Williams , Kim Dienes

PDF | Version of Record

Copyright: © 2023 Williams et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Download (415.84KB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1371/journal.pone.0277360

Abstract

ObjectiveTo explore UK public decisions around whether or not to get COVID-19 vaccines, and the facilitators and barriers behind participants’ decisions.DesignThis qualitative study consisted of six online focus groups conducted between 15th March and 22nd April 2021. Data were analysed using a fram...

Full description

Published in:	PLOS ONE
ISSN:	1932-6203
Published:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2023
Online Access:	Check full text
URI:	https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa62253

first_indexed	2023-06-01T14:06:39Z
last_indexed	2024-11-14T12:20:37Z
id	cronfa62253
recordtype	SURis
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2024-01-08T15:05:57.0362699</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>62253</id><entry>2023-01-03</entry><title>Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>d43865b0aa32bfa591d1f12d6c0b7a17</sid><ORCID>0000-0003-2854-9946</ORCID><firstname>Simon</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><name>Simon Williams</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author><author><sid>76108f6ac5e9dccfc581a09f7e5ef333</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-6119-7025</ORCID><firstname>Kim</firstname><surname>Dienes</surname><name>Kim Dienes</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2023-01-03</date><deptcode>PSYS</deptcode><abstract>ObjectiveTo explore UK public decisions around whether or not to get COVID-19 vaccines, and the facilitators and barriers behind participants’ decisions.DesignThis qualitative study consisted of six online focus groups conducted between 15th March and 22nd April 2021. Data were analysed using a framework approach.SettingFocus groups took place via online videoconferencing (Zoom).ParticipantsParticipants (n = 29) were a diverse group (by ethnicity, age and gender) UK residents aged 18 years and older.ResultsWe used the World Health Organization’s vaccine hesitancy continuum model to look for, and explore, three main types of decisions related to COVID-19 vaccines: vaccine acceptance, vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy (or vaccine delay). Two reasons for vaccine delay were identified: delay due to a perceived need for more information and delay until vaccine was “required” in the future. Nine themes were identified: three main facilitators (Vaccination as a social norm; Vaccination as a necessity; Trust in science) and six main barriers (Preference for “natural immunity”; Concerns over possible side effects; Perceived lack of information; Distrust in government;; Conspiracy theories; “Covid echo chambers”) to vaccine uptake.ConclusionIn order to address vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy, it is useful to understand the reasons behind people’s decisions to accept or refuse an offer of a vaccine, and to listen to them and engage with, rather than dismiss, these reasons. Those working in public health or health communication around vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, in and beyond the UK, might benefit from incorporating the facilitators and barriers found in this study.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>PLOS ONE</journal><volume>18</volume><journalNumber>3</journalNumber><paginationStart>e0277360</paginationStart><paginationEnd/><publisher>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>1932-6203</issnElectronic><keywords/><publishedDay>6</publishedDay><publishedMonth>3</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2023</publishedYear><publishedDate>2023-03-06</publishedDate><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0277360</doi><url>http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277360</url><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Psychology School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>PSYS</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal)</apcterm><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2024-01-08T15:05:57.0362699</lastEdited><Created>2023-01-03T14:18:34.6639975</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Psychology</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Simon</firstname><surname>Williams</surname><orcid>0000-0003-2854-9946</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Christopher J.</firstname><surname>Armitage</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Kim</firstname><surname>Dienes</surname><orcid>0000-0002-6119-7025</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>John</firstname><surname>Drury</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Tova</firstname><surname>Tampe</surname><order>5</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>62253__27672__b1f65ab87fe34dc7a7a64fe17357b9b9.pdf</filename><originalFilename>62253.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2023-06-01T15:05:57.8277368</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>425825</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Copyright: © 2023 Williams et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling	2024-01-08T15:05:57.0362699 v2 62253 2023-01-03 Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study d43865b0aa32bfa591d1f12d6c0b7a17 0000-0003-2854-9946 Simon Williams Simon Williams true false 76108f6ac5e9dccfc581a09f7e5ef333 0000-0002-6119-7025 Kim Dienes Kim Dienes true false 2023-01-03 PSYS ObjectiveTo explore UK public decisions around whether or not to get COVID-19 vaccines, and the facilitators and barriers behind participants’ decisions.DesignThis qualitative study consisted of six online focus groups conducted between 15th March and 22nd April 2021. Data were analysed using a framework approach.SettingFocus groups took place via online videoconferencing (Zoom).ParticipantsParticipants (n = 29) were a diverse group (by ethnicity, age and gender) UK residents aged 18 years and older.ResultsWe used the World Health Organization’s vaccine hesitancy continuum model to look for, and explore, three main types of decisions related to COVID-19 vaccines: vaccine acceptance, vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy (or vaccine delay). Two reasons for vaccine delay were identified: delay due to a perceived need for more information and delay until vaccine was “required” in the future. Nine themes were identified: three main facilitators (Vaccination as a social norm; Vaccination as a necessity; Trust in science) and six main barriers (Preference for “natural immunity”; Concerns over possible side effects; Perceived lack of information; Distrust in government;; Conspiracy theories; “Covid echo chambers”) to vaccine uptake.ConclusionIn order to address vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy, it is useful to understand the reasons behind people’s decisions to accept or refuse an offer of a vaccine, and to listen to them and engage with, rather than dismiss, these reasons. Those working in public health or health communication around vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, in and beyond the UK, might benefit from incorporating the facilitators and barriers found in this study. Journal Article PLOS ONE 18 3 e0277360 Public Library of Science (PLoS) 1932-6203 6 3 2023 2023-03-06 10.1371/journal.pone.0277360 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277360 COLLEGE NANME Psychology School COLLEGE CODE PSYS Swansea University SU Library paid the OA fee (TA Institutional Deal) 2024-01-08T15:05:57.0362699 2023-01-03T14:18:34.6639975 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences School of Psychology Simon Williams 0000-0003-2854-9946 1 Christopher J. Armitage 2 Kim Dienes 0000-0002-6119-7025 3 John Drury 4 Tova Tampe 5 62253__27672__b1f65ab87fe34dc7a7a64fe17357b9b9.pdf 62253.pdf 2023-06-01T15:05:57.8277368 Output 425825 application/pdf Version of Record true Copyright: © 2023 Williams et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title	Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study
spellingShingle	Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study Simon Williams Kim Dienes
title_short	Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study
title_full	Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study
title_fullStr	Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed	Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study
title_sort	Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study
author_id_str_mv	d43865b0aa32bfa591d1f12d6c0b7a17 76108f6ac5e9dccfc581a09f7e5ef333
author_id_fullname_str_mv	d43865b0aa32bfa591d1f12d6c0b7a17_*_Simon Williams 76108f6ac5e9dccfc581a09f7e5ef333_*_Kim Dienes
author	Simon Williams Kim Dienes
author2	Simon Williams Christopher J. Armitage Kim Dienes John Drury Tova Tampe
format	Journal article
container_title	PLOS ONE
container_volume	18
container_issue	3
container_start_page	e0277360
publishDate	2023
institution	Swansea University
issn	1932-6203
doi_str_mv	10.1371/journal.pone.0277360
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
college_str	Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id	facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title	Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id	facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title	Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str	School of Psychology{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Psychology
url	http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277360
document_store_str	1
active_str	0
description	ObjectiveTo explore UK public decisions around whether or not to get COVID-19 vaccines, and the facilitators and barriers behind participants’ decisions.DesignThis qualitative study consisted of six online focus groups conducted between 15th March and 22nd April 2021. Data were analysed using a framework approach.SettingFocus groups took place via online videoconferencing (Zoom).ParticipantsParticipants (n = 29) were a diverse group (by ethnicity, age and gender) UK residents aged 18 years and older.ResultsWe used the World Health Organization’s vaccine hesitancy continuum model to look for, and explore, three main types of decisions related to COVID-19 vaccines: vaccine acceptance, vaccine refusal and vaccine hesitancy (or vaccine delay). Two reasons for vaccine delay were identified: delay due to a perceived need for more information and delay until vaccine was “required” in the future. Nine themes were identified: three main facilitators (Vaccination as a social norm; Vaccination as a necessity; Trust in science) and six main barriers (Preference for “natural immunity”; Concerns over possible side effects; Perceived lack of information; Distrust in government;; Conspiracy theories; “Covid echo chambers”) to vaccine uptake.ConclusionIn order to address vaccine uptake and vaccine hesitancy, it is useful to understand the reasons behind people’s decisions to accept or refuse an offer of a vaccine, and to listen to them and engage with, rather than dismiss, these reasons. Those working in public health or health communication around vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, in and beyond the UK, might benefit from incorporating the facilitators and barriers found in this study.
published_date	2023-03-06T14:21:29Z
_version_	1821325015805591552
score	11.048042

Public decisions about COVID-19 vaccines: A UK-based qualitative study

Similar Items