The Uptake Study: Insights and Beliefs of the UK Population on Vaccines During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Background: Whilst an effective vaccine may present the safest way to achieve adequate population immunity from the COVID-19 pandemic, a key challenge towards successful uptake is vaccine hesitancy. We examine and provide novel insights on the key drivers and barriers towards COVID-19 vaccine uptake.Methods: This study involved an anonymous cross-sectional online survey circulated across the UK. Multi-nominal logistic models examined demographic factors that may impact vaccine uptake. We used principle component analysis and text mining to explore perception related to vaccine uptake.Findings: The survey had 4884 respondents of which 9·44% were BAME (Black Asian Minority Ethnic). Overall 3873 (79·3%) respondents were interested in taking approved vaccines while 677 (13·9%) respondents were unsure, and 334 (6·8%) respondents would not take a vaccine. Participants aged over 70 years (Odds Ratio (OR) = 4·63) and the BAME community (OR = 5·48) were more likely to accept approved vaccines. Smokers (OR=0·45) and respondents with no known illness (OR = 0·70) were less likely to accept approved vaccines. The study identified 16 key reasons for not accepting approved vaccines - the most common (60%) being the possibility of the COVID-19 vaccine having side effects.Interpretation: This study provides an insight into potential governmental policy recommendations essential in designing strategies to reduce vaccine hesitancy. These strategies could increase engagement and encourage participation from BAME groups, smokers and those with no diagnosed health conditions, ensuring adequate immunity. This proves crucial in managing the COVID-19 pandemic.Funding: This study was independently funded and there was no funding source associated with this study.Declaration of Interests: This research has been supported by NIHR CRN West Midlands. MJB has received grants and travel expenses from Vifor International and Tillots Pharma, outside of the submitted work. All other authors report no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The interview questions were collated, reviewed and refined internally by a group of researchers. This was followed by an external review and further refinement by a group of volunteers made up of patients, public and user groups, the CRN West Midlands Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Research Champions Group. Feedback from this group was used to modify questions prior to the survey going live. The study was approved by local approval processes and by theClinical Research Network, West Midlands. From ethics discussions, no ethical-related issues were identified. Consent was obtained from participants prior to completion of the form. Participants were provided with information about the study, and how the data was going to be disseminated in the initial page of the survey.