Factors Associated With US Adults’ Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccination | Infectious Diseases | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Factors Associated With US Adults’ Likelihood of Accepting COVID-19 Vaccination

Educational Objective
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  What factors are associated with US adults’ choice of and willingness to accept a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine?

Findings  In this survey study of a national sample of 1971 US adults, vaccine-related attributes (eg, vaccine efficacy, adverse effects, and protection duration) and political factors (eg, US Food and Drug Administration approval process, national origin of vaccine, and endorsements) were associated with preferences for choosing a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine. Health care attitudes and practices, political partisanship, and demographic characteristics, including age, sex, and race/ethnicity, were also associated with willingness to receive a vaccination.

Meaning  The results of this survey study may help inform public health campaigns to address vaccine hesitancy.

Abstract

Importance  The development of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine has progressed at unprecedented speed. Widespread public uptake of the vaccine is crucial to stem the pandemic.

Objective  To examine the factors associated with survey participants’ self-reported likelihood of selecting and receiving a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine.

Design, Setting, and Participants  A survey study of a nonprobability convenience sample of 2000 recruited participants including a choice-based conjoint analysis was conducted to estimate respondents’ probability of choosing a vaccine and willingness to receive vaccination. Participants were asked to evaluate their willingness to receive each hypothetical vaccine individually. The survey presented respondents with 5 choice tasks. In each, participants evaluated 2 hypothetical COVID-19 vaccines and were asked whether they would choose vaccine A, vaccine B, or neither vaccine. Vaccine attributes included efficacy, protection duration, major adverse effects, minor adverse effects, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process, national origin of vaccine, and endorsement. Levels of each attribute for each vaccine were randomly assigned, and attribute order was randomized across participants. Survey data were collected on July 9, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Average marginal component effect sizes and marginal means were calculated to estimate the relationship between each vaccine attribute level and the probability of the respondent choosing a vaccine and self-reported willingness to receive vaccination.

Results  A total of 1971 US adults responded to the survey (median age, 43 [interquartile range, 30-58] years); 999 (51%) were women, 1432 (73%) White, 277 (14%) were Black, and 190 (10%) were Latinx. An increase in efficacy from 50% to 70% was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.06-0.09), and an increase from 50% to 90% was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18). An increase in protection duration from 1 to 5 years was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.05 95% CI, 0.04-0.07). A decrease in the incidence of major adverse effects from 1 in 10 000 to 1 in 1 000 000 was associated with a higher probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08). An FDA emergency use authorization was associated with a lower probability of choosing a vaccine (coefficient, −0.03; 95% CI, −0.04 to −0.01) compared with full FDA approval. A vaccine that originated from a non-US country was associated with a lower probability of choosing a vaccine (China: −0.13 [95% CI, −0.15 to −0.11]; UK: −0.04 [95% CI, −0.06 to −0.02]). Endorsements from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (coefficient, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.07-0.11) and the World Health Organization (coefficient, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.08), compared with an endorsement from President Trump were associated with higher probabilities of choosing a vaccine. Analyses of participants’ willingness to receive each vaccine when assessed individually yielded similar results. An increase in efficacy from 50% to 90% was associated with a 10% higher marginal mean willingness to receive a vaccine (from 0.51 to 0.61). A reduction in the incidence of major side effects was associated with a 4% higher marginal mean willingness to receive a vaccine (from 0.54 to 0.58). A vaccine originating in China was associated with a 10% lower willingness to receive a vaccine vs one developed in the US (from 0.60 to 0.50) Endorsements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization were associated with increases in willingness to receive a vaccine (7% and 6%, respectively) from a baseline endorsement by President Trump (from 0.52 to 0.59 and from 0.52 to 0.58, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance  In this survey study of US adults, vaccine-related attributes and political characteristics were associated with self-reported preferences for choosing a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine and self-reported willingness to receive vaccination. These results may help inform public health campaigns to address vaccine hesitancy when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: September 16, 2020.

Published: October 20, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25594

Correction: This article was corrected on November 23, 2020, to fix the third-to-last sentence in the last paragraph of the Results, where the phrase “lower willingness” was incorrectly used; the correct phrase is “greater willingness.”

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Kreps S et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Douglas L. Kriner, PhD, Department of Government, Cornell University, 209 White Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850 (kriner@cornell.edu).

Author Contributions: Drs Kreps and Kriner had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Kreps, Prasad, Garibaldi, Hswen, Zhang, Kriner.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Prasad, Brownstein, Garibaldi, Kriner.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kreps, Prasad, Kriner.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Prasad, Brownstein, Hswen, Garibaldi, Zhang, Kriner.

Statistical analysis: Garibaldi, Hswen, Zhang, Kriner.

Obtained funding: Kreps, Kriner.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Prasad.

Supervision: Kreps, Prasad, Hswen, Kriner.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: Drs Kreps and Kriner would like to thank the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability for financial support.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Graham  BS . Rapid COVID-19 vaccine development.  Science. 2020;368(6494):945-946. doi:10.1126/science.abb8923PubMed
2.
Shetty  P .  Experts concerned about vaccination backlash.   Lancet. 2010;375(9719):970-971. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60421-7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Larson  HJ , de Figueiredo  A , Xiahong  Z ,  et al.  The state of vaccine confidence 2016: global insights through a 67-country survey.   EBioMedicine. 2016;12:295-301. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.08.042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Dayrit  MM , Mendoza  RU , Valenzuela  SA .  The importance of effective risk communication and transparency: lessons from the dengue vaccine controversy in the Philippines.   J Public Health Policy. 2020;41(3):252-267. doi:10.1057/s41271-020-00232-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
D’Souza  G , Dowdy  D . What is herd immunity and how can we achieve it with COVID-19 ? Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Expert Insights. Published April 10, 2020. Accessed July 11, 2020. https://www.jhsph.edu/covid-19/articles/achieving-herd-immunity-with-covid19.html
6.
Chodosh  S . Why only half of Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine. Popular Science. Published online June 1, 2020. Accessed September 22, 2020. https://www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-vaccine-poll/
7.
Goldstein  A , Clement  S . 7 in 10 Americans would be likely to get a coronavirus vaccine, Post-ABC poll finds. Washington Post. Published June 2, 2020. Accessed September 22, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/7-in-10-americans-would-be-likely-to-get-a-coronavirus-vaccine-a-post-abc-poll-finds/2020/06/01/4d1f8f68-a429-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html
8.
Kreps S, Kriner D, Brownstein J, et al. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: evidence from a choice-based conjoint experiment. Centers for Open Science website. Published July 8, 2020. Accessed September 22, 2020. https://osf.io/jrmqf/
9.
Cattin  P , Wittink  DR .  Commercial use of conjoint analysis: a survey.   J Mark. 1982;46(3):44-53. doi:10.1177/002224298204600308Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Trapero-Bertran  M , Rodríguez-Martín  B , López-Bastida  J . What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? a systematic literature review.  PLoS One. 2019;14(7):e0219905. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219905
11.
Quaife  M , Terris-Prestholt  F , Di Tanna  GL , Vickerman  P .  How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? a systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity.   Eur J Health Econ. 2018;19(8):1053-1066. doi:10.1007/s10198-018-0954-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Determann  D , Korfage  IJ , Lambooij  MS ,  et al.  Acceptance of vaccinations in pandemic outbreaks: a discrete choice experiment.   PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102505. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102505PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Simpson  CR , Ritchie  LD , Robertson  C , Sheikh  A , McMenamin  J .  Effectiveness of H1N1 vaccine for the prevention of pandemic influenza in Scotland, UK: a retrospective observational cohort study.   Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(9):696-702. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70133-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Wichmann  O , Stöcker  P , Poggensee  G ,  et al.  Pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009 breakthrough infections and estimates of vaccine effectiveness in Germany 2009-2010.   Euro Surveill. 2010;15(18):1-4. doi:10.2807/ese.15.18.19561-enPubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Shono  A , Kondo  M .  Parents’ preferences for seasonal influenza vaccine for their children in Japan.   Vaccine. 2014;32(39):5071-5076. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.07.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Guo  N , Zhang  G , Zhu  D , Wang  J , Shi  L .  The effects of convenience and quality on the demand for vaccination: results from a discrete choice experiment.   Vaccine. 2017;35(21):2848-2854. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Veldwijk  J , Lambooij  MS , Bruijning-Verhagen  PCJ , Smit  HA , de Wit  GA .  Parental preferences for rotavirus vaccination in young children: a discrete choice experiment.   Vaccine. 2014;32(47):6277-6283. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.09.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
de Bekker-Grob  EW , Hofman  R , Donkers  B ,  et al.  Girls’ preferences for HPV vaccination: a discrete choice experiment.   Vaccine. 2010;28(41):6692-6697. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.08.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
de Bekker-Grob  EW , Veldwijk  J , Jonker  M ,  et al.  The impact of vaccination and patient characteristics on influenza vaccination uptake of elderly people: a discrete choice experiment.   Vaccine. 2018;36(11):1467-1476. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.01.054PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Branswell  H . The world needs covid-19 vaccines. It may also be overestimating their power. STAT News. Published May 22, 2020. Accessed September 22, 2020. https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/22/the-world-needs-covid-19-vaccines-it-may-also-be-overestimating-their-power/
21.
Paek  HJ , Hilyard  K , Freimuth  VS , Barge  JK , Mindlin  M .  Public support for government actions during a flu pandemic: lessons learned from a statewide survey.   Health Promot Pract. 2008;9(4)(suppl):60S-72S. doi:10.1177/1524839908322114PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Quinn  SC , Kumar  S , Freimuth  VS , Kidwell  K , Musa  D .  Public willingness to take a vaccine or drug under emergency use authorization during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.   Biosecur Bioterror. 2009;7(3):275-290. doi:10.1089/bsp.2009.0041PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Determann  D , Korfage  IJ , Fagerlin  A ,  et al.  Public preferences for vaccination programmes during pandemics caused by pathogens transmitted through respiratory droplets—a discrete choice experiment in four European countries, 2013.   Euro Surveill. 2016;21(22):1-13. doi:10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.22.30247PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Ledent  E , Gabutti  G , de Bekker-Grob  EW ,  et al.  Attributes influencing parental decision-making to receive the Tdap vaccine to reduce the risk of pertussis transmission to their newborn—outcome of a cross-sectional conjoint experiment in Spain and Italy.   Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2019;15(5):1080-1091. doi:10.1080/21645515.2019.1571890PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Kelley  K , Maxwell  SE .  Sample size for multiple regression: obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant.   Psychol Methods. 2003;8(3):305-321. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.305PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
de Bekker-Grob  EW , Donkers  B , Jonker  MF , Stolk  EA .  Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide.   Patient. 2015;8(5):373-384. doi:10.1007/s40271-015-0118-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Baker  R , Brick  JM , Bates  NA ,  et al.  Summary report of the AAPOR task force on non-probability sampling.   J Surv Stat Methodol. 2013;1(2):90-105. doi:10.1093/jssam/smt008Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Reg  B , Blumberg  SJ , Brick  JM ,  et al.  Research synthesis: AAPOR report on online panels.   Public Opin Q. 2010;74(4):711-781. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq048Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Coppock  A , McClellan  OA .  Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents.   Res Polit. 2019;6(1):1-14. doi:10.1177/2053168018822174Google Scholar
30.
Hainmueller  J , Hopkins  DJ , Yamamoto  T .  Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments.   Polit Anal. 2014;22(1):1-30. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt024Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Leeper  TJ , Hobolt  SB , Tilley  J .  Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments.   Polit Anal. 2020;28(2):207-221. doi:10.1017/pan.2019.30Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Lambooij  MS , Harmsen  IA , Veldwijk  J ,  et al.  Consistency between stated and revealed preferences: a discrete choice experiment and a behavioural experiment on vaccination behaviour compared.   BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):19. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0010-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Mahase  E .  Covid-19: WHO halts hydroxychloroquine trial to review links with increased mortality risk.   BMJ. 2020;369:m2126. doi:10.1136/bmj.m2126PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Mahase  E .  Covid-19: Trump halts WHO funding in move labelled “petulant” and “short sighted.”   BMJ. 2020;369:m1502. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1502PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Raude  J , Fressard  L , Gautier  A , Pulcini  C , Peretti-Watel  P , Verger  P .  Opening the ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ black box: how trust in institutions affects French GPs’ vaccination practices.   Expert Rev Vaccines. 2016;15(7):937-948. doi:10.1080/14760584.2016.1184092PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Nichol  KL , Zimmerman  R .  Generalist and subspecialist physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations for elderly and other high-risk patients: a nationwide survey.   Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(22):2702-2708. doi:10.1001/archinte.161.22.2702PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Klein  SL , Pekosz  A .  Sex-based biology and the rational design of influenza vaccination strategies.   J Infect Dis. 2014;209(suppl 3):S114-S119. doi:10.1093/infdis/jiu066PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close