RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Healthcare workers’ views on mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the United Kingdom: findings from the UK-REACH prospective longitudinal cohort study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.01.11.22269017
DO 10.1101/2022.01.11.22269017
A1 Katherine Woolf
A1 Mayuri Gogoi
A1 Christopher A Martin
A1 Padmasayee Papineni
A1 Susie Lagrata
A1 Laura B Nellums
A1 I Chris McManus
A1 Anna L Guyatt
A1 Carl Melbourne
A1 Luke Bryant
A1 Amit Gupta
A1 Catherine John
A1 Sue Carr
A1 Martin D Tobin
A1 Sandra Simpson
A1 Bindu Gregary
A1 Avinash Aujayeb
A1 Stephen Zingwe
A1 Rubina Reza
A1 Laura J Gray
A1 Kamlesh Khunti
A1 Manish Pareek
A1 On behalf of the UK-REACH Study Collaborative Group
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/11/2022.01.11.22269017.abstract
AB Background Several countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs’ views on this are largely unknown.Methods We administered an online questionnaire to 17891 United Kingdom (UK) HCWs in Spring 2021 as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question “What should society do if people don’t get vaccinated against COVID-19?” using content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not and used logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and occupational, health and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics.Findings Of 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the freetext question; 18% (n=578) of those favoured mandatory vaccination but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n=1047). Older HCWs, HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.48; 95%CI 1.10 – 1.99, vs none) and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95%CI 1.06 – 1.14) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination (OR 1.26; 95%CI 1.17 – 1.37, per decade increase), whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.80, 95%CI 0.65 – 0.99, vs male), Black HCWs (OR= 0.48, 95%CI 0.26 – 0.87, vs White), those hesitant about COVID-19 vaccination (OR= 0.56; 95%CI 0.43 – 0.71, vs not hesitant), in an Allied Health Profession (OR 0.67; 95%CI 0.51 – 0.88, vs Medical), or who trusted their organisation (OR 0.78; 95%CI 0.63 – 0.96) were less likely to.Interpretation Only one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective and equitable.Funding MRC-UK Research and Innovation grant (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care via the National Institute for Health Research.Competing Interest StatementKK is Director of the University of Leicester Centre for Black Minority Ethnic Health, Trustee of the South Asian Health Foundation, Chair of the Ethnicity Subgroup of the UK Government Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and Member of Independent SAGE. SC is Deputy Medical Director of the General Medical Council, UK Honorary Professor, University of Leicester.Funding StatementUK-REACH is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. Core funding was also provided by NIHR Biomedical Research Centres. KW was funded through an NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2017-10-008). CAM is an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow (ACF-2018-11-004). LBN is supported by an Academy of Medical Sciences Springboard Award (SBF005\1047). ALG was funded by internal fellowships at the University of Leicester from the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund (204801/Z/16/Z) and the BHF Accelerator Award (AA/18/3/34220). MDT holds a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award (WT 202849/Z/16/Z) and an NIHR Senior Investigator Award. KK and LJG are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC EM). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. KK and MP are supported by the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). MP is supported by a NIHR Development and Skills Enhancement Award. This work is carried out with the support of BREATHE -The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health [MC_PC_19004] in partnership with SAIL Databank. BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Brighton and Sussex Research Ethics Committee gave ethical approval for this work; ethics reference: 20/HRA/4718I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesTo access data or samples produced by the UK-REACH study, the working group representative must first submit a request to the Core Management Group by contacting the UK-REACH Project Manager in the first instance. For ancillary studies outside of the core deliverables, the Steering Committee will make final decisions once they have been approved by the Core Management Group. Decisions on granting the access to data/materials will be made within eight weeks. Third party requests from outside the Project will require explicit approval of the Steering Committee once approved by the Core Management Group. Note that should there be significant numbers of requests to access data and/or samples then a separate Data Access Committee will be convened to appraise requests in the first instance. https://www.uk-reach.org/main/data-dictionary/