17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      University students’ perspectives, planned uptake, and hesitancy regarding the COVID-19 vaccine: A multi-methods study

      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

          Purpose

          To investigate university students’ willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to them.

          Method

          A multi-methods approach was used—online convenience sample surveys and semi-structured interviews—of young adults attending a large Canadian public university. Two survey samples were collected (June 20-July 28, 2020 and September 22-October 17, 2020). Semi-structured interviews were conducted following each survey, interviewing 20 students in each round.

          Results

          In June 77.8% of surveyed students (n = 483) were willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine; in September 79.6% were willing (n = 1269). Multinomial and binary logistic regression analyses found that increasing perception of the severity of COVID-19 predicted the likelihood that a respondent was willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine in both surveys. In the latter survey students who indicated they would be encouraged to get the COVID-19 vaccine if their doctor/pharmacist recommended it were 76 times more likely to be willing to get the vaccine than those who would not be encouraged by medical advice. Interviews revealed concerns about the speed of the vaccine roll out, safety, and efficacy.

          Conclusions

          The majority of university students intend to get the COVID-19 vaccine, but there are nuanced concerns about efficacy and safety that must be taken into account by public health authorities as the vaccine becomes available to this group. Ensuring that family doctors, pharmacists, and other front-line healthcare workers have consistent and clear information regarding the benefits of vaccination will be critical to encouraging uptake among young adults.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

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

          Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness.

          Qualitative content analysis as described in published literature shows conflicting opinions and unsolved issues regarding meaning and use of concepts, procedures and interpretation. This paper provides an overview of important concepts (manifest and latent content, unit of analysis, meaning unit, condensation, abstraction, content area, code, category and theme) related to qualitative content analysis; illustrates the use of concepts related to the research procedure; and proposes measures to achieve trustworthiness (credibility, dependability and transferability) throughout the steps of the research procedure. Interpretation in qualitative content analysis is discussed in light of Watzlawick et al.'s [Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London] theory of communication.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

            Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                3 August 2021
                2021
                3 August 2021
                : 16
                : 8
                : e0255447
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ] Department of Mathematical & Computational Sciences, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ] Groves Memorial Community Hospital, Fergus, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ] Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5370-9959
                Article
                PONE-D-21-08664
                10.1371/journal.pone.0255447
                8330905
                34343202
                aea95c88-58c5-463e-b807-4c803ed6251d
                © 2021 Mant 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.

                History
                : 16 March 2021
                : 19 July 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 7, Pages: 16
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Toronto COVID-19 Action Initiative
                Award Recipient :
                MM: This study was funded by the University of Toronto COVID-19 Action Initiative. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Infectious Disease Control
                Vaccines
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Vaccine Development
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Influenza
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                North America
                Canada
                Custom metadata
                Data cannot be shared publicly because interview and survey data hold potentially identifiable sensitive information regarding the student participants and it would therefore be unethical to make this public and would undermine the minimal risk ethical committee agreement and consent process. Participants did not provide consent for their transcripts and linked survey responses to be made public. Data are available from the University of Toronto Human Research & Ethics Unit (HREU) Research Oversight & Compliance Office (ROCO) (contact via ethics.review@ 123456utoronto.ca ) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article