Vaccination
What predicts COVID-19 vaccine willingness
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
About two-thirds of surveyed adults were ready to vaccinate; perceived risk, news sources, and partisanship shaped willingness.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Nationwide US probability panel survey before vaccines were available
- N
- N=1012 · Representative adults; oversample of poverty and racial/ethnic minorities
- Population
- US adults in KnowledgePanel
- Outcome
- Willingness to vaccinate self and dependents against COVID-19
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
About 68% were ready to vaccinate themselves and 65% would vaccinate people under their care. Higher perceived susceptibility and severity tracked higher willingness; family COVID history did not. Partisan and media patterns also related to acceptance.
Methodology
Investigators analysed survey responses on willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine for oneself and for dependents, relating answers to risk perceptions, major news platforms, political identity, confidence in scientists, and social determinants.
Limitations
Cross-sectional intention is not the same as later uptake, and self-report can overstate willingness. Causal effects of media or party identity cannot be isolated.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
School closure and internal movement limits tracked lower Rt most robustly.
In a 130-country panel of early-2020 policies, school closure and internal movement restrictions had strong evidence of association with reduced SARS-CoV-2 Rt across model checks.
Scope note — different question — vaccine willingness, not NPI→Rt effects
Limits the claim's scope: a different population, assay, or outcome.
Country-level NPI→Rt associations and individual vaccine-willingness surveys do not adjudicate which single domestic rule “worked best” for every locality.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Country-level NPI→Rt associations and individual vaccine-willingness surveys do not adjudicate which single domestic rule “worked best” for every locality.
- Supports · Which COVID NPIs actually lowered Rt?
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.