Cited by 42Vaccine Coverage and HesitancySARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 and Mental Health

Royal society of Canada COVID-19 report: Enhancing COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Canada

Open access
MacDonald, Noni E., Comeau, Jeannette, Dubé, Ève, Graham, Janice, Greenwood, Margo, Harmon, Shawn, McElhaney, Janet, Meghan McMurtry, C. +3 more·2021·FACETS

Abstract

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance exists on a continuum from a minority who strongly oppose vaccination, to the “moveable middle” heterogeneous group with varying uncertainty levels about acceptance or hesitancy, to the majority who state willingness to be vaccinated. Intention for vaccine acceptance varies over time. COVID-19 vaccination decisions are influenced by many factors including knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs; social networks; communication environment; COVID-19 community rate; cultural and religious influences; ease of access; and the organization of health and community services and policies. Reflecting vaccine acceptance complexity, the Royal Society of Canada Working Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance developed a framework with four major factor domains that influence vaccine acceptance (people, communities, health care workers; immunization knowledge; health care and public health systems including federal/provincial/territorial/indigenous factors)—each influencing the others and all influenced by education, infection control, extent of collaborations, and communications about COVID-19 immunization. The Working Group then developed 37 interrelated recommendations to support COVID vaccine acceptance nested under four categories of responsibility: 1. People and Communities, 2. Health Care Workers, 3. Health Care System and Local Public Health Units, and 4. Federal/Provincial/Territorial/Indigenous. To optimize outcomes, all must be engaged to ensure co-development and broad ownership.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/facets-2021-0037

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacDonald, N. E., Comeau, J., Dubé, È., Graham, J., Greenwood, M., Harmon, S., McElhaney, J., Meghan McMurtry, C., Middleton, A., Steenbeek, A., & Taddio, A.
Affiliations
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec (CA)
  • University of Northern British Columbia (CA)
  • Health Sciences North (CA)
  • Pediatric Pain, Health and Communication Lab (PPHC), University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
  • York University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
FACETS
Published
2021-01-01
Volume
6
Pages
1184-1246
ISSN
2371-1671 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3185426568
Cited by
42
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • FACETS (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Ottawa
  • McMaster University
  • York University
  • University of Alberta
  • Dalhousie University
  • University of Toronto
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, vaccine hesitancy, healthcare workers, public health communication, immunization knowledge, social networks, cultural and religious influences, vaccine access, Indigenous health

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