The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the COVID-19 pandemic
Open accessAbstract
Background: Vaccine hesitancy presents an obstacle to the campaign to control COVID-19. It has previously been found to be associated with youth, female gender, low income, low education, low medical trust, minority ethnic group membership, low perceived risk from COVID-19, use of certain social media platforms and conspiracy beliefs. However, it is unclear which of these predictors might explain variance associated with others. Methods: An online survey was conducted with a representative sample of 4343 UK residents, aged 18–75, between 21 November and 21 December 2020. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy were assessed using linear rank-order models. Results: Coronavirus vaccine hesitancy is associated with youth, female gender, low income, low education, high informational reliance on social media, low informational reliance on print and broadcast media, membership of other than white ethnic groups, low perceived risk from COVID-19 and low trust in scientists and medics, as well as (to a much lesser extent) low trust in government. Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions and general vaccine attitudes appear uniquely predictive, jointly explaining 35% of variance. Following controls for these variables, effects associated with trust, ethnicity and social media reliance largely or completely disappear, whereas the effect associated with education is reversed. Conclusions: Strengthening positive attitudes to vaccination and reducing conspiracy suspicions with regards to the coronavirus may have a positive effect on vaccine uptake, especially among ethnic groups with heightened vaccine hesitancy. However, vaccine hesitancy associated with age and gender does not appear to be explained by other predictor variables tested here.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wickham, H. (2016) · Use R! · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 · Cited by 33,115
ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis
Wickham, H. (2009) · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 · Cited by 14,447
Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants
MacDonald, N. E. (2015) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036 · Cited by 5,573
psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research
Revelle, W. (2007) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.psych · Cited by 2,965
Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA
Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1 · Cited by 1,800
Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review
Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17187 · Cited by 1,564
The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089177 · Cited by 1,232 · cited 1×
“There is also experimental support for a causal relationship between exposure to anti-vaccination materials (including conspiracy theories) and reduced intention to vaccinate (Betsch, Renkewitz, Betsch, & Ulshöfer, 2010; Chen, Zhang, Young, Wu, & Zhu, 2020; Jolley & Douglas, 2014).”
BackgroundConspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S.
Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2020) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356 · Cited by 1,060
Social media and vaccine hesitancy
Wilson, S. L., & Wiysonge, C. (2020) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004206 · Cited by 972
Allington, D., Duffy, B., Wessely, S., Dhavan, N., & Rubin, J. (2021) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s003329172000224x · Cited by 904
Self-citation
Cited by
Results of the COVID-19 mental health international for the general population (COMET-G) study
Fountoulakis, K. N., Karakatsoulis, G., Abraham, S., Adorjan, K., Ahmed, H. U., Alarcón, R. D., Arai, K., Auwal, S. S., Berk, M., Bjedov, S., et al. (2022) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.10.004 · Cited by 134
Parthasarathi, A., Puvvada, R. K., Basappa, S., Krishna, M. T., & P A, M. (2022) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17517.1 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Allington, D., McAndrew, S., Moxham-Hall, V., & Duffy, B.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-04-12
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 236-247
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W3154248945
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 32.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291721001434
- The paper
- Allington, D., McAndrew, S., Moxham-Hall, V., & Duffy, B. (2023). Coronavirus conspiracy suspicions, general vaccine attitudes, trust and coronavirus information source as predictors of vaccine hesitancy among UK residents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291721001434
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.