Open access
Original research
Sonika Sethi
,1 Aditi Kumar,1 Anandadeep Mandal,2 Mohammed Shaikh,3
3
Claire A Hall, Jeremy M W Kirk,3 Paul Moss,2 Matthew J Brookes,1,4
Supratik Basu1,4
To cite: Sethi S, Kumar A,
Mandal A, et al. The UPTAKE
study: a cross-sectional survey
examining the insights and
beliefs of the UK population
on COVID-19 vaccine uptake
and hesitancy. BMJ Open
2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/
bmjopen-2021-048856
► Prepublication history and
additional supplemental material
for this paper are available
online. To view these files,
please visit the journal online
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
bmjopen-2021-048856).
SS, AK and AM are joint first
authors.
Received 11 January 2021
Accepted 24 May 2021
© Author(s) (or their
employer(s)) 2021. Re-use
permitted under CC BY-NC. No
commercial re-use. See rights
and permissions. Published by
BMJ.
1
Department of Gastroenterology
and Haematology, Royal
Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS
Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
2
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK
3
NIHR Clinical Research Network
West Midlands, West Midlands,
UK
4
Research Institute in Healthcare
Sciences, University of
Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton,
UK
Correspondence to
Dr Sonika Sethi;
sonika.sethi1@nhs.net
ABSTRACT
Objective A key challenge towards a successful
COVID-19 vaccine uptake is vaccine hesitancy. We
examine and provide novel insights on the key drivers and
barriers towards COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
Design This study involved an anonymous cross-sectional
online survey circulated across the UK in September 2020.
The survey was designed to include several sections to
collect demographic data and responses on (1) extent of
agreement regarding various statements about COVID-19
and vaccinations, (2) previous vaccination habits (eg, if
they had previously declined vaccination) and (3) interest
in participation in vaccine trials. Multinominal 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.
Setting The survey was circulated through various media,
including posts on social media networks (Facebook,
Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram), national radio, news
articles, Clinical Research Network website and newsletter,
and through 150 West Midlands general practices via a
text messaging service.
Participants There were a total of 4884 respondents
of which 9.44% were black, Asian and minority ethnic
(BAME) group. The majority were women (n=3416, 69.9%)
and of white ethnicity (n=4127, 84.5%).
Results Regarding respondents, overall, 3873 (79.3%)
were interested in taking approved COVID-19 vaccines,
while 677 (13.9%) were unsure, and 334 (6.8%) would
not take a vaccine. Participants aged over 70 years
old (OR=4.63) and the BAME community (OR=5.48)
were more likely to take an approved vaccine. 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.
Conclusions This study provides an insight into
focusing on specific populations to reduce vaccine
hesitancy. This proves crucial in managing the COVID-19
pandemic.
Strengths and limitations of this study
► This is the largest and first cross-sectional online
►
►
►
►
survey in the UK that allows examination of the
various factors influencing the uptake of a potential
approved COVID-19 vaccine.
This survey has allowed us to gain a deeper insight
and a snapshot into the uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine, at a time prior to vaccine launch.
This study was generally inclusive across all demographic groups, including age and ethnicity, with
similar numbers to the UK population.
The participant cohort could have benefitted from
greater black, Asian and minority ethnic group diversity and representation.
There is likely to be selection bias among the respondents completing the survey, and it provides a
snapshot of the views at the time of response.
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 is an infectious disease that is
caused by the SARS-CoV-2, initially detected
in Wuhan, China, in November 2019.1 The
WHO declared the COVID-19 epidemic a
Public Health Emergency of International
Concern on 30 January 2020.2 This highly
infectious disease has led to worldwide
curfews and social distancing restrictions
to prevent further spread of COVID-19.3
Although social distancing measures have
been identified as one of the primary tools
to reduce the transmission of COVID-19,4
this has led to insurmountable effects on
the economy and the social and mental wellbeing of people’s health.5
There is little evidence to suggest that
the spread of COVID-19 will stop naturally
through population immunity, that is, ‘herd
immunity’.6 Population immunity takes
place when a sufficiently large proportion of
immune individuals exists in a population.
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
1
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
The UPTAKE study: a cross-sectional
survey examining the insights and
beliefs of the UK population on
COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy
Open access
METHODS
Study design
This study involved a national anonymous cross-sectional
online survey. The survey was created in English via
Google forms. The survey was open from 4 September
2020 to 9 October 2020. The survey was circulated across
the UK through various media. These included posts
on social media networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn
and Instagram), national radio, news articles, Clinical
Research Network West Midlands (CRN WM) website
and newsletter and through 150 West Midlands general
2
practices via a text messaging service. The social media
networks were used to target the general population
with multiple posts during the month of September.
The radio and news articles were centred on targeting
BAME-specific individuals who are notoriously known to
be under-represented in studies. The general practices
sent a generic text to all patients in their practice asking
for participation with a link to access the survey. Those
without a mobile phone or internet service were unable
to participate in the survey.
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
the CRN WM Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Research
Champions Group. Feedback from this group was used to
modify questions prior to the survey going live.
The survey (online supplemental appendix A) was
designed to include several sections to collect demographic data and responses on (1) extent of agreement
regarding various statements about COVID-19 and vaccinations, (2) previous vaccination habits (eg, if they had
previously declined vaccination) and (3) level of interest
in participation in vaccine trials.
Patient and public involvement
Patient and public involvement was through review of our
research questions by the CRN WM Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion Research Champions Group. This consists
of a group of volunteers made up of patients and public
and user groups.
Ethical approval and patient consent
This study was approved by local approval processes by
the CRN WM. No ethical-related issues were identified.
The Health Research Authority decision tool also indicated that there was not a need for National Health
Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee review (online
supplemental appendix B). Participants were provided
with information about the study and how the data were
going to be disseminated in the initial page of the survey.
This was an entirely anonymous survey with no identifiable material or information collected. No individual
consent was obtained as the patients participated without
providing any identifiable material. However, implied
consent was taken as participants proceeded to complete
the survey after reading what the survey was about and
how the data were going to be used.
Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis was done in five phases. The first
described the data of the participants of the COVID-19
survey, including the various factors considered in the
analysis. The second phase investigated the various
factors influencing the respondents’ interest in approved
vaccines. This analysis was done using a multinomial
logistic regression model. The analysis was done on the
overall data, considering various factors such as age,
gender, ethnicity (BAME and non-BAME), diagnosed
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
With an estimated 0.3%–1.3% infection fatality ratio, the
cost of reaching population immunity through natural
infection would be very high.7 Men, older individuals and
those with comorbidities are disproportionately affected,
with an infection fatality ratio as high as 3.3%.8 Additionally, Public Health England revealed the death rate from
COVID-19 in England to be four times higher for black
people and three times higher for Asian people than for
their white counterparts.9 Thus, an effective vaccine may
offer the safest way to reach population immunity, particularly if immunity boosts are needed with virus variant
formation or reinfections.6 The BioNTech–Pfizer vaccine
has now been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency, and on 8 December, the UK
became the first country to roll out a national vaccination
programme for COVID-19.10 Shortly following this, the
Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine was approved for use in the
UK, while the Moderna vaccine has been mainly administered in the USA.11
A further challenge for successful vaccine uptake,
particularly with COVID-19, is vaccine hesitancy. Despite
previous successful vaccines, there has been a greater
shift of attention given to ‘vaccine hesitancy’, described
as those people who have concerns about vaccine safety,
efficacy or need.12 This can include those who are unsure
about taking the vaccine and may have concerns or
those who would refuse to take the vaccine. Obstacles
to vaccination can include lack of trust towards public
health authorities or government strategies and access
to rumours and myths, particularly around safety. This is
largely influenced by the media.13 Vaccine uptake rates
can also vary across different communities and ethnicities,
with significantly lower uptake rates in the black, Asian
and minority ethnic (BAME) community.14 15 Furthermore, recently cited adverse outcomes in the ongoing
trials could discourage the public from participating in a
COVID-19 vaccine programme.
With the newly approved vaccines now being rolled out
to the public, this study has explored the key drivers and
barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake at this pivotal time.
The insights from this study could be valuable in delivering, supporting and promoting adequate uptake for
the population-wide vaccine programme in other countries that are in their planning or initial stages of vaccine
roll out.
Open access
RESULTS
The survey had 4884 respondents. We received complete
responses for each section, as participants were not
able to submit the survey without completing all of the
parts. The majority were women (n=3416, 69.9%) and of
white ethnicity (n=4127, 84.5%). There were 461 BAME
respondents (9.4%), while 49 (1%) respondents chose
not to disclose their ethnicity. Among the BAME community, 258 (5.3%) respondents were Asian/Asian British–
Indian, and overall, only 67 (1.4%) respondents were
black/African/Caribbean/black British. The majority
of the respondents were non-university degree holders
(n=1574, 32.2%), while there were 1780 (36.4%) university undergraduate degree holders and 1010 (20.7%)
postgraduate respondents. The age group 50–59 were the
largest participant age group (1101 responses, 22.5%),
with 552 (11.3%) responses from those aged 70 and
above. Ninety-two percent (n=4495) of the respondents
were non-smokers, and 39.9% (n=1949) of the respondents stated diagnosed health issues. See table 1 for the
full breakdown.
Overall, 3873 (79.3%) respondents were interested in
taking approved vaccines, while 677 (13.86%) respondents were unsure, and only 334 (6.9%) stated that they
were not going to take the vaccine. Figure 1 presents
the OR of the various factors that significantly influence interest in taking the approved COVID-19 vaccines.
The results indicate that except for factors of ‘no health
issues’ (OR=0.70) and ‘smokers’ (OR=0.45), the rest of
the factors have OR >1. Among those respondents who
declared their educational qualification, graduates were
more likely to take the vaccine compared with the nongraduates (considered as the reference group). Similarly,
of those respondents who declared their gender, men
were more likely to take the approved vaccine. Respondents belonging to the age groups 50–69 (OR=5.45) and
70 and above (OR=4.63) were more likely to accept the
approved COVID-19 vaccine compared with the respondents below 50 years old, which is considered as the reference group. Among the ethnicity groups, it is evident
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
that the BAME community was more likely to accept the
COVID-19 vaccine (OR=5.48). Within the BAME community, the South Asian ethnicity, that is, Indian, Pakistani
and Bangladeshi, showed more interest towards uptake
of the approved COVID-19 vaccine. The figure shows the
reference categories against which the ORs have been
estimated.
Table 2 reports the mean scores of the survey questionnaire. For the survey, a 5-point Likert Scale was used, that
is, strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree
(4) and strongly agree (5). The mean scores for all the
questions are above three, and the SD was very low for the
general questions on vaccine, such as ‘vaccines are safe’
and ‘vaccines keep you healthy’. However, for the questions specific on COVID-19, the SD was higher. This indicates that even though the respondents tend to agree on
the importance and necessity of the COVID-19 vaccine,
the responses varied considerably more than the generic
ones. There was a significant difference in the mean score
of the responses between the BAME and the non-BAME
community, with mean scores of the former significantly
higher than that of the latter community, although SDs
were lower. That the variation of the scores of the BAME
community was higher than the non-BAME community
could possibly indicate that perception of vaccines differs
widely across the BAME community.
The reliability coefficient range of the questionnaire
is 0.91 (value of Cronbach’s alpha). The latent variables
were estimated using principal component analysis. For
the questionnaire, the null hypothesis of Bartlett’s test
of sphericity was rejected at 1% significance level (P
value <0.01), stating that the variables are not orthogonal, that is, they are correlated. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
value is 0.89, indicating that the sampling is adequate.
The findings show that the OR of impact of ‘perception
of COVID-19 vaccine on overall health’ (OR=3.34) on
uptake of approved COVID-19 vaccine is considerably
higher than the impact of ‘perception of generic vaccine
on overall health’ (OR=1, reference category).
In total, 1011 respondents (20.7%) were classified
into the ‘non-uptake’ group; within this group, 334
(33%) would choose not to take the approved vaccine
(‘refusers’), and 677 (67%) respondents were ‘unsure’.
The ‘unsure’ group was two times larger than the
‘refusers’. In the ‘non-uptake’ group, women accounted
for 75% (n=759), with 33.6% (n=340) reported to have
diagnosed health issues. Smokers were at 8.3% (n=84).
Among the qualification classifications in the ‘nonuptake’ group, university graduates accounted for 37.2%
(n=376), followed by school graduates (29.6%, n=299)
and postgraduates (18.9%, n=191). Respondents without
formal qualifications only constituted 1.7% (n=17). Only
5.3% (n=54) respondents in the ‘non-uptake’ group were
of the age group 70 years old and above. Among the nontakers of vaccine, the BAME community accounted for
15.6% (n=158), while 80.9% (n=818) belonged to the
non-BAME community. Of those who would choose not
to have the vaccine, 52.1% (n=641) indicated that they
3
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
health condition and qualification. Estimates were
computed for the whole data by the combination of the
gender, age group and ethnicity stratifications. The third
phase compared the BAME and the non-BAME community responses of the COVID-19 vaccine survey using
independent sample t-test. The fourth examination analysed the ‘non-uptake’ group, consisting of those respondents who either chose not to uptake approved vaccines
or were unsure. The fifth phase of the statistical analysis
examined the key reasons cited by the respondents for
not being willing to take an approved COVID-19 vaccine.
This analysis was done using natural language processing
technique considering the reasons quoted by the respondents. The key reasons cited were further analysed based
on gender and ethnicity classifications. All analysis was
carried out in STATA V.16.
Open access
Respondents
Percentage
(%)
Interested in approved COVID-19 vaccine
Interested
3873
79.3
Not interested
334
6.8
Unsure
677
13.9
Age group
Respondents Percentage (%)
Gender
Woman
3416
69.9
Man
1426
29.2
Prefer not to say
42
0.9
Ethnicity
Under 18
7
0.1
Caucasian—English/Welsh/Scottish/ 4127
Northern Irish/British
84.5
18–29
525
10.7
Caucasian—Irish
1.0
30–39
708
14.5
Caucasian—Gypsy or Irish Traveller
3
0.1
40–49
1042
21.3
Caucasian—Roma
2
0.0
50–59
1101
22.5
Caucasian—others
193
4.0
49
60–69
914
18.7
Asian/Asian British—Indian
258
5.3
70 and above
552
11.3
Asian/Asian British—Pakistani
30
0.6
Prefer not to say
35
0.7
Asian/Asian British—Chinese
19
0.4
Asian/Asian British—Bangladeshi
18
0.4
BAME community
Non-BAME
4374
89.6
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups
69
1.4
BAME
461
9.4
Black/African/Caribbean/black
British—African
67
1.4
Prefer not to say
49
1.0
Prefer not to say
49
1.0
No formal
qualifications
127
2.6
Smoker
386
7.9
Up to A level
1574
32.2
Non-smoker
4495
92.0
University degree
(undergraduate)
1780
36.4
Prefer not to say
3
0.1
Postgraduate
1010
20.7
Prefer not to say
393
8.0
2935
1949
60.1
39.9
Qualification
Smoker
Diagnosed health issue
No diagnosed health issues
At least one diagnosed health issue
Note: The table above reports the demographic insights of the respondents of the COVID-19 survey. There were 4884 respondents, and the
table is based on the full data collected.
BAME, black, Asian and minority ethnic.
have previously declined vaccinations. The details are
reported in table 3.
The survey identified 16 reasons cited by the respondents for not taking approved COVID-19 vaccines. The
details are reported in table 4. Panel A provides the
percentages for the not sure category, whereas Panel B
reports the details of the not interested category. In both
categories, ‘unless completely tested with no proven side
effect’ was the reason with the greatest response (71% for
Panel A and 54.2% for Panel B).
At the end of the survey, there was an opportunity for
free text comments. Some free text comments regarding
reasons for not taking the vaccine revolved around the
idea of the BAME community being used as ‘guinea pigs’
for trials to verify vaccine results and mistrust around
government strategies.
4
DISCUSSION
This is the largest UK-based population survey, examining the views surrounding COVID-19 vaccination and
providing a focus on key factors to drive vaccination
uptake. This survey allows us to compare the UK with
other countries that have similarly gained perceptions and
potential vaccine uptake through an online survey. China
had the highest rate of perceived vaccine uptake, where
91.3% would accept an approved and available COVID-19
vaccination.16 A survey done across seven European countries found that 74% of participants would be willing to get
vaccinated against COVID-1917—a similar finding to our
results. A recent survey undertaken in the USA showed
the lowest COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rate of 67% with
men, older adults, Asians and college and/or graduate
degree holders more accepting of the vaccine.18
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Table 1 Description of the survey respondents for the whole sample
Open access
This is also the first survey to focus specifically on the
BAME population and other high-risk groups identified as the government’s priority for vaccination. The
79.2% of participants willing to be vaccinated exceeds
the threshold required for COVID-19 population immunity, estimated to be 74% in Europe.17 It is important to
overcome the barriers to vaccine uptake and to target the
non-takers, known as the ‘non-uptake’ group, in order
to ensure that the population immunity threshold is met
across the population.
In late September, the UK government published
interim advice on high-risk groups that will be prioritised with the COVID-19 vaccination programme.19 A
combination of clinical risk stratification and an agebased approach was used in determining these groups,
placing clinically vulnerable and over 70 age cohort as
priority groups. Both of these groups, according to our
findings, are more likely to uptake the approved vaccine.
Several studies have found that groups over the age of
55 are more willing to get vaccinated.17 In a UK survey
done with older adults and patients with chronic respiratory disease, 86% of respondents wanted to receive a
COVID-19 vaccine.20 This may be due to the awareness
that older adults with comorbidities are at greater risk of
COVID-19 complications.
While the overall proportion of BAME participants was
relatively low in our study, the BAME recruitment was
greater than any other UK COVID-19 vaccination-based
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
study thus far. Our results found that the BAME community in general is more likely to accept approved vaccines
when compared with the non-BAME community. This
contrasts with previous literature suggesting generally
poor vaccination uptake rates in the BAME community,
such as for child and influenza vaccinations.14 There has
also historically been racial disparities surrounding trust
in vaccines, where the BAME community is less likely to
trust pharmaceutical companies and government strategies.21 A primary reason for a potential increase in uptake
with the COVID-19 vaccine may be due to the disproportionate amount of COVID-19 deaths in the BAME population with a third of these patients being admitted to the
intensive care unit.11
However, examining the individual ethnic groups,
there are clear disparities with potential uptake. Our
results showed that the South Asian groups showed
more interest towards uptake of the approved COVID-19
vaccine. The South Asian population made up most of
the BAME participation, and historically, these groups
have a higher uptake in vaccination programmes in the
UK and also in their home countries, where trust in the
medical profession is high.18 22 Only 1.4% of our study
participants were black British, making it difficult to fully
deduct the views of this community with such a limited
sample size. However, our findings support previous literature surrounding the black community and their lower
vaccine uptake rates.23 There is a deep-rooted mistrust
5
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Figure 1 ORs showing factors influencing interest in taking an approved COVID-19 vaccine. BAME: black, Asian and minority
ethnic.
Open access
6
Table 2
Comparing the responses of the survey questionnaire on COVID-19
Overall
BAME
Non-BAME
BAME vis-à-vis
non-BAME
Related questions
Mean
core
SD
Mean
Score
SD
Mean
Score
SD
(P value)
Latent variable OR
Vaccines are safe
Vaccines keep you healthy
3.97
4.07
0.938
0.951
3.67
3.79
1.036
1.067
4.01
4.11
0.904
0.916
(0.000)
(0.000)
Vaccines are imp. for overall health
4.14
0.963
3.86
1.070
4.19
0.925
(0.000)
Perception of
1 (reference
generic vaccine category)
on overall health
4.04
1.019
3.77
1.120
4.09
0.986
(0.000)
4.08
1.069
3.77
1.147
4.13
1.035
(0.000)
Vaccine is best to prevent COVID-19
4.17
1.058
3.82
1.183
4.22
1.016
(0.000)
Only vaccine can control COVID-19
COVID-19 vaccine won't harm me
4.11
3.94
1.098
1.022
3.80
3.67
1.201
1.159
4.16
3.98
1.061
0.986
(0.000)
(0.000)
Perception
of COVID-19
vaccine on
overall health
3.34
(0.000)
Note: The table reports the mean scores of the responses of the COVID-19 survey. In total, there were 4884 respondents. A 5-point Likert Scale was used for this survey, that is, strongly
disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5). The reliability coefficient range of the questionnaire is 0.91 (value of Cronbach’s alpha). The latent variables were
estimated using principal component analysis. For the questionnaire, the null hypothesis of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was rejected at 1% significant level, stating that the variables are not
orthogonal, that is, they are correlated. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value is 0.89 indicating that the sampling is adequate. The OR of the latent variables was computed employing binary logistic
regression model.
BAME, black, Asian and minority ethnic.
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
Approved COVID-19 vaccines are safe
Vaccine is a necessity for COVID-19
(P value)
Open access
Non-uptakers category
Not sure (677 respondents)
Refusers (334 respondents) Total (1011 respondents)
Gender (%)
Man
20.38
26.05
22.26
Woman
78.29
68.56
75.07
Prefer not to say
1.33
5.39
2.67
Smoker (%)
5.61
13.77
8.31
Diagnosed health condition (%)
35.45
29.94
33.63
No qualification
2.22
0.60
1.68
School graduates
31.17
26.35
29.57
Graduates
37.81
35.93
37.19
Qualification (%)
Postgraduates
19.20
18.26
18.89
Prefer not to say
9.60
18.86
12.66
Under 18
0.00
0.30
0.10
18–29
13.00
15.87
13.95
30–39
18.46
20.66
19.19
40–49
23.63
26.95
24.73
50–59
25.26
20.06
23.54
60–69
11.67
8.98
10.78
70+
6.50
2.99
5.34
Prefer not to say
1.48
4.19
2.37
9.45
16.77
15.63
Age group (%)
Ethnicity (%)
BAME
Non-BAME
83.31
76.05
80.91
Prefer not to say
Record of declined vaccination
(%)
7.24
20.53
7.19
52.09
3.46
30.95
Note: The table reports the demographic details of respondents who chose not to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Overall, 1011 respondents
chose not to take the vaccine.
BAME, black, Asian and minority ethnic.
within this community in medical and vaccine research,
due to historical oppression and health inequalities.20 24
Several US studies have supported this, with the black
community having higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine
hesitancy.15 18 The perception surrounding vaccines
differs widely across the BAME community and remains a
challenge for this high-risk group.
Aside from ethnic differences, our study identified
that smokers, those aged 40–49 and those with no known
illness were less likely to accept approved vaccines. This
is the first study to identify smokers being less likely
to accept approved vaccines and could be an area of
concern. Smokers are 1.4 times more likely to have severe
symptoms of COVID-19 and approximately 2.4 times
more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit.25 A
younger and healthy cohort being less willing to vaccinate
has also been supported by study findings in Europe and
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
the USA15 17 and may reflect the perception from these
groups that they have less complications of COVID-19 or
may die from it.26 However, with the infectious nature of
COVID-19, having these groups not vaccinated poses a
greater risk of spreading to those susceptible to greater
complications from COVID-19.27
Contrary to previous studies,15 educational qualifications did not have an influence on vaccine uptake
in our study. This may suggest that vaccination attitude is more likely to be influenced by motivational
and psychological factors, including a feeling of individual responsibility for population-wide health, rather
than education.27 The 52.1% of the non-takers had a
recorded history of declined vaccination in the past,
making it more likely that this is a long-term view held
about vaccinations, with a similar trend found in other
studies.15
7
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Table 3 Non-uptakers of approved COVID-19 vaccine
Open access
8
Table 4
Key reasons cited by the non-uptakers category of 1011 respondents
Panel A: not sure (677 respondents)
Panel B: refuser (334 respondents)
Woman
(%)
Man
(%)
BAME
(%)
Non-BAME
(%)
Responses
(%)
Woman
(%)
Man
(%)
BAME Non-BAME
(%)
(%)
71.00
67.50
32.50
5.45
94.55
54.21
75.48
24.52
4.55
95.45
2
Unless completely tested and no proven side
effects
Impaired immune system
4.00
68.00
32.00
3.68
96.32
20.32
67.82
32.18
7.82
92.18
3
Undisclosed reasons
2.28
45.60
54.40
12.07
87.93
3.41
66.45
33.55
27.89
72.11
4
COVID-19 doesn’t need vaccine
2.00
55.45
44.55
17.81
82.19
4.89
38.28
61.72
14.35
85.65
5
Don’t believe in vaccines
2.00
62.67
37.33
13.69
86.31
3.67
61.78
38.22
11.62
88.38
6
Religious reasons
2.00
66.82
33.18
81.92
18.08
4.21
69.05
30.95
89.15
10.85
7
Vaccine development is being rushed
10.00
55.22
44.78
0.00
100.00
2.65
85.49
14.51
0.46
99.54
8
Below 50 years old, so not important for my
age
1.00
65.20
34.80
0.00
100.00
1.24
75.28
24.72
1.67
98.33
9
Already infected, so not sure of vaccine side
effects
1.00
55.64
44.36
0.00
100.00
0.45
60.75
39.25
4.89
95.11
10
Cautious of age (65+)
2.00
55.88
44.12
0.00
100.00
0.67
88.34
11.66
1.57
98.43
11
Don’t trust the government and
pharmaceuticals
0.20
59.72
40.28
18.69
81.31
1.00
63.48
36.52
10.68
89.32
12
Concerned about the impact to health of family 2.00
members
61.08
38.92
0.00
100.00
0.78
67.43
32.57
25.78
74.22
13
BAME will be used as trials to verify vaccine
results
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
100.00
0.00
13.78
86.22
14
Pregnancy-related and motherhood-related
worries
0.40
100.00
0.00
18.04
81.96
0.58
100.00
0.00
47.28
52.72
15
16
Bad experience of influenza vaccine
Unethical measures used
0.10
0.02
71.05
100.00
28.95
0.00
0.00
10.67
100.00
89.33
1.78
0.02
59.82
100.00
40.18
0.00
4.77
5.89
95.23
94.11
Reasons
1
Note: This table reports the key reasons cited for not willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Panel A reports the reasons cited by the not sure category, and Panel B reports the findings for the
refuser category.
BAME, black, Asian and minority ethnic.
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
Responses
(%)
No.
Open access
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
strategies, which has been supported in other studies.21
These views may have also been influenced by social
media views at the time, particularly those highlighting
vaccines as being rushed and rolled out quickly to the
public without adequate testing. Furthermore, in terms of
the views surrounding vaccines in general compared with
a COVID-19-specific one, there was more variety in the
responses related to the COVID-19-specific statements
compared with the generic vaccine ones, and this was
particularly found in the BAME responses. The topical
nature surrounding COVID-19 vaccinations specifically is
likely to draw more polarised opinions, particularly given
the constant focus on COVID-19 in social media and news
channels. Twitter reported a COVID-19-related tweet
every 45 milliseconds, and the hashtag #coronavirus is the
second most used in 2020.35 There are also greater antivaccination sentiments shared on social media compared
with those promoting uptake, which can lead to considerable public health concerns and the consequent potential
to downstream vaccine hesitancy.35
Interventional educational and public health campaigns
need to be targeted towards populations at risk of vaccine
hesitancy and challenge the key reasons for not accepting
approved vaccines. Furthermore, policymakers and shareholders need to be aware that these key reasons cited by
the non-uptake cohort are potential barriers to vaccine
uptake. This is to combat misinformation, particularly
those circulated on social media platforms in an uncensored manner.35 Our study also reveals that the perception of vaccine on one’s overall health plays a significant
driver in the decision for uptake of an approved vaccine.
There is an understanding in our population cohort that
vaccines are important in the fight against COVID-19
and that vaccines are needed to prevent COVID-19. This
needs to be highlighted further in promotion and education of vaccines.36
A limitation of this study is that, while this is one of
the most BAME-inclusive COVID-19 vaccination-related
studies, our BAME participant percentage (9.44%) is
still below the overall BAME representation in the UK,
which is approximately 14%.37 In particular, we received
a very small amount of black and East Asian (eg, Chinese)
participants, so it is difficult to fully deduct the views of
the entirety of the BAME community. From the data that
we have, however, it appears that the UK black community follows a similar trend to the USA in higher levels
of vaccine hesitancy, but this can be difficult to generalise with such a small data set. Regardless, further work
is needed to engage the black community in research
participation and, from the limited data we do have, also
in vaccine promotion.
Similar to other published surveys, there was also selection bias, as a computer or smart phone was needed to
complete the survey. This may have excluded the older
population, who is less likely to be digitally literate, and
also economically marginalised groups. There are data
suggesting these groups engage the least with the UK NHS
digital resources, and it remains a challenge to provide
9
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
Our study reports 16 key reasons for not accepting
approved vaccines, with the main one being fear of side
effects. Other studies have also identified safety as a key
reason for vaccine hesitancy.15 20 At the time of the survey
circulation, news channels were publicising the Oxford–
AstraZeneca trial being paused due to participants having
side effects, and this was widely circulated in the media at
the time.28 Specifically, there were concerns of side effects
of transverse myelitis that, although may not be directly
linked to the vaccine, could also not be ruled out.29 This
could have influenced participants’ view on the safety of
vaccines.
This survey was done at the time when an approved
vaccine had not yet been made available. However, now
that vaccines have been licensed and shown to be safe
and effective, recent surveys have shown the intention
to vaccinate is higher. Nguyen et al’s study showed that
from September to December 2020, intent to receive
COVID-19 vaccination increased by around 10% and
non-intent decreased by 6%.30
Similar numbers from our ‘non-uptake’ group were
found in another UK-based study.31 However, in our
study, the ‘unsure’ group is twice the size of the ‘nonuptake’ group. An Australian study by Attwell et al32
demonstrated that respondents were more likely to be in
the ‘maybe’ group versus the ‘no’ group for vaccination if
they perceived COVID-19 to be a severe disease and not a
‘hoax’, were more likely to have the influenza vaccination
and had greater trust in science. In the case of our study,
the ‘unsure’ group, which makes a significant portion of
the ‘non-uptake’ group, may change their mind about
the vaccine once further details on an approved vaccine
become available, particularly information on safety and
efficacy. Furthermore, they may be more willing to take
the vaccine if it is positively promoted on social media.
This is reinforced by a repeat of Attwell et al’s survey in
November 2020, compared with May 2020, that found
more respondents being in the ‘maybe’ category for
vaccination, conveying how dynamic and changing the
decision making process can be.
The next most common reason (16.1%) was having an
‘impaired immune system’. This would include patients
who are on immunosuppressant medication or have
a cancer diagnosis. However, similar to the influenza
vaccine, those with an impaired immune system are
still encouraged to have the annual influenza vaccination.33 The hesitancy in vaccine uptake in this immunocompromised cohort may also be linked back to safety
and the belief that vaccines may be suboptimal34 and
ultimately whether the risks of taking the vaccine may
outweigh the benefits. However, this may well sway the
‘unsure’ group into the ‘uptake’ group as they see more
people with various comorbidities taking the vaccine
without any adverse effects.
Participants added their own reasons for not accepting
approved vaccines. This revolved around the idea of the
BAME community being used as ‘guinea pigs’ for trials
to verify vaccine results and mistrust around government
Open access
CONCLUSION
The uptake of approved vaccines is crucial in the fight
against the COVID-19 pandemic. These novel findings
regarding public insight on vaccines, including key
barriers and facilitators towards vaccination, have the
potential to shape future policy, practice and intervention
development. This study provides necessary policy recommendations essential for the UK government and the UK
medical advisory team on designing strategies. This study
emphasises policies targeting the needs of increased
participation from the BAME community, young people
and those with no diagnosed health conditions to uptake
approved COVID-19 vaccines. This will allow the UK to
effectively reach population immunity thresholds nationwide and in controlling further outbreaks of this rapidly
spreading disease. Widespread vaccine uptake will be a
crucial turning point in rebuilding the nation’s social,
health and financial losses from this unprecedented
pandemic.
Twitter Sonika Sethi @sonika_sethi
Contributors SS and AK—involved in designing the survey questions and
distributing the survey. They conducted literature reviews and wrote up the study
and were involved in manuscript revisions. AM—ran the statistical analysis and
was involved in writing the study and in manuscript revisions. MS—involved in
designing the survey questions, running the survey online and manuscript revisions.
CAH—distributed the survey on official networks and involved in manuscript
revisions. PM—involved in manuscript revisions. JMK, MJB and SB—involved in
designing the concept of the study, distributing the survey and manuscript revisions
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any
funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. Crosssectional data can be made available (deidentified participant data) after authors’
review of request.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has
not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been
peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those
of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and
10
responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content
includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability
of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines,
terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error
and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which
permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially,
and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is
properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use
is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
ORCID iD
Sonika Sethi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4816-0869
REFERENCES
1 Li Q, Guan X, Wu P, et al. Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan,
China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. N Engl J Med
2020;382:1199–207.
2 WHO. Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19), 2020.
Available: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novelcoronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen
3 Lewnard JA, Lo NC. Scientific and ethical basis for social-distancing
interventions against COVID-19. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:631–3.
4 Weill JA, Stigler M, Deschenes O, et al. Social distancing responses
to COVID-19 emergency declarations strongly differentiated by
income. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020;117:19658–60.
5 Serafini G, Parmigiani B, Amerio A, et al. The psychological impact of
COVID-19 on the mental health in the general population. QJM: An
International Journal of Medicine 2020;113:531–7.
6 Fontanet A, Cauchemez S. COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we?
Nat Rev Immunol 2020;20:583–4.
7 Salje H, Tran Kiem C, Lefrancq N, et al. Estimating the burden of
SARS-CoV-2 in France. Science 2020;369:208–11.
8 Raisi-Estabragh Z, McCracken C, Bethell MS, et al. Greater risk of
severe COVID-19 in Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic populations
is not explained by cardiometabolic, socioeconomic or behavioural
factors, or by 25(OH)-vitamin D status: study of 1326 cases from the
UK Biobank. J Public Health 2020;42:451–60.
9 Razaq A, Harrison D, Karunanithi S. BAME COVID-19 deathswhat do we know? Rapid data & evidence review. The Centre for
Evidence-Based Medicine. University of Oxford, 2020. Available:
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/bame-covid-19-deaths-what-dowe-know-rapid-data-evidence-review/
10 BBC News. Covid-19 vaccine: first person receives pfizer Jab in UK,
8 December 2020, 2020. Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk55227325
11 Gallagher J, Triggle N. Covid-19: Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine
approved for use in UK. BBC news. Available: https://www.bbc.co.
uk/news/health-55280671
12 Deml MJ, Jafflin K, Merten S, et al. Determinants of vaccine
hesitancy in Switzerland: study protocol of a mixed-methods national
research programme. BMJ Open 2019;9:e032218.
13 Siciliani L, Wild C, McKee M, et al. Strengthening vaccination
programmes and health systems in the European Union: a framework
for action. Health Policy 2020;124:511–8.
14 Forster AS, Rockliffe L, Chorley AJ, et al. Ethnicity-specific factors
influencing childhood immunisation decisions among black and
Asian minority ethnic groups in the UK: a systematic review of
qualitative research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2017;71:544–9.
15 Fisher KA, Bloomstone SJ, Walder J, et al. Attitudes toward a
potential SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: a survey of U.S. adults. Ann Intern
Med 2020;173:964–73.
16 Wang J, Jing R, Lai X, et al. Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination
during the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Vaccines 2020;8:482.
17 Neumann-Böhme S, Varghese NE, Sabat I, et al. Once we have it,
will we use it? a European survey on willingness to be vaccinated
against COVID-19. Eur J Health Econ 2020;21:977–82.
18 Malik AA, McFadden SM, Elharake J, et al. Determinants of
COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US. EClinicalMedicine
2020;26:100495.
19 Department of Health and Social Care. Priority groups for
coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination: advice from the JCVI, 25
September 2020, 2020. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/priority-groups-for-coronavirus-covid-19-vaccinationadvice-from-the-jcvi-25-september-2020/jcvi-updated-interimadvice-on-priority-groups-for-covid-19-vaccination
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
reliable and updated information to them.23 This survey
is also more likely to attract responses from those who are
motivated to complete this survey and who are more likely
to have stronger opinions related to the COVID-19 vaccination, attracting selection bias. Furthermore, there is a
clear skew towards women and those more educated, so it
may be difficult to generalise our results to the entire UK
population. This survey also remains a snapshot of what
the view was as of September 2020, but it may have likely
changed since the vaccination programme has started or
even in the early phases of the trials as other studies have
suggested.30 32
Strengths of our study include the ability to stratify on
demographic factors to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake.
Exploring key reasons towards vaccine hesitancy provides
policymakers and key shareholders an insight into how to
effectively target public health campaigns.
Open access
Sethi S, et al. BMJ Open 2021;11:e048856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856
30 Nguyen KH, Srivastav A, Razzaghi H, et al. COVID-19 vaccination
intent, perceptions, and reasons for not vaccinating among groups
prioritized for early vaccination - United States, September and
December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70:217–22.
31 Paul E, Steptoe A, Fancourt D. Attitudes towards vaccines and
intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: implications for public
health communications. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
2021;1:100012.
32 Attwell K, Lake J, Sneddon J, et al. Converting the maybes:
crucial for a successful COVID-19 vaccination strategy. PLoS One
2021;16:e0245907.
33 Centers for disease control and prevention. Weakened immune
system and adult vaccination, 2016. Available: https://www.cdc.
gov/vaccines/adults/rec-vac/health-conditions/weakenedimmune.
html#:~:text=Weakened%20Immune%20System%20and%
20Adult%20Vaccination&text=Tdap%20vaccine%20to%20protect%
20against,up%20to%20age%2026%20years
34 Bosaeed M, Kumar D. Seasonal influenza vaccine in
immunocompromised persons. Hum Vaccin Immunother
2018;14:1311–22.
35 Puri N, Coomes EA, Haghbayan H, et al. Social media and vaccine
hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized
infectious diseases. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2020;16:2586–93.
36 Reiter PL, Pennell ML, Katz ML. Acceptability of a COVID-19 vaccine
among adults in the United States: how many people would get
vaccinated? Vaccine 2020;38:6500–7.
37 Office for National Statistics. Population of England and Wales,
2020. Available: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.
uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/national-and-regional-populations/
population-of-england-and-wales/latest
11
BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-048856 on 15 June 2021. Downloaded from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on October 16, 2022 by guest. Protected by copyright.
20 Williams L, Gallant AJ, Rasmussen S, et al. Towards intervention
development to increase the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination among
those at high risk: Outlining evidence-based and theoretically informed
future intervention content. Br J Health Psychol 2020;25:1039–54.
21 Jamison AM, Quinn SC, Freimuth VS. "You don't trust a government
vaccine": narratives of institutional trust and influenza vaccination
among African American and white adults. Soc Sci Med
2019;221:87–94.
22 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.
23 Ensuring your trial is designed for all who could benefit. include
ethnicity framework worksheet., 2020Trial Forge. Available: https://
www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/include/
24 Yancy CW. COVID-19 and African Americans. JAMA
2020;323:1891–2.
25 Vardavas CI, Nikitara K. COVID-19 and smoking: a systematic review
of the evidence. Tob Induc Dis 2020;18:20.
26 Wilson RF, Sharma AJ, Schluechtermann S. Factors influencing risk
for COVID-19 exposure among young adults aged 18–23 years —
Winnebago County, Wisconsin, March–July 2020. MMWR Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention 2020;69:1497–502.
27 Barello S, Nania T, Dellafiore F, et al. 'Vaccine hesitancy' among
university students in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur J
Epidemiol 2020;35:781–3.
28 The Financial Times. AstraZeneca puts vaccine trial on hold after
participant falls ill, 2020. Available: https://www.ft.com/content/
98fca6d4-fcd2-488c-bcfc-d47758740a1a
29 Voysey M, Clemens SAC, Madhi SA, et al. Safety and efficacy of
the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an
interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South
Africa, and the UK. Lancet 2021;397:99–111.