Changes in general practitioners’ attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination after first interim results: a longitudinal approach in France

Figures & data

Figure 1. Timeline of Covid-19 vaccine milestones and survey dates

^aInterim results transmitted by the pharmaceutical company. ^bAstraZeneca. ^cMedicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. ^dFood and Drug Administration. ^eEuropean Medicines Agency. ^fOnly 30 GPs among the 800 on the panel responded to the first survey between 11–15 November.

Figure 2. Changes in acceptance of future COVID-19 vaccines (N = 805)^a

^aAll figures and percentages are weighted (for gender, age, region, workload). Reading note: Of the 198 general practitioners (25% of the 805 participants) who were hesitant or reluctant in the first survey in October-November 2020, 58% remained so in the second survey in November-December 2020, 27% moved into the Moderate Acceptance category, and 15% into the High Acceptance category.

Table 1. Frequency of marked changes in acceptance of future COVID-19 vaccines by period, weighted data, N = 474^a.

	Before 02/12/2020		02/12/2020 onwards		Total
	(N = 298)		(N = 176)		(N = 474)
	N	Col. %	N	Col. %	N	%
Decrease from high acceptance to hesitancy/reluctance	(N = 212)		(N = 118)		(N = 330)
Stayed high	179	84.53	102	86.10	281	85.09
Hesitancy/reluctance	33	15.47	16	13.90	49	14.91
P-value:	0.81
Increase from hesitancy/reluctance to high acceptance	(N = 86)		(N = 58)		(N = 144)
Stayed low	71	82.59	43	74.25	114	79.23
High acceptance	15	17.41	15	25.75	30	20.77
P-value:	0.45

^aThe two periods were defined as follows: survey period before December 2, 2020, corresponding to the availability of the pharmaceutical companies’ press releases about the preliminary results for their vaccines; survey period starting December 2, 2020, corresponding to the first marketing authorizations and peer-reviewed scientific publications about the efficacy and safety of the first vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca).

Table 2. Factors associated with marked changes in the acceptance of future COVID-19 vaccines between October-November (survey 1) and November-December (survey 2), logistic regressions, weighted data

	Model 1. Decrease from high acceptance to hesitancy/reluctance (ref. stayed high)		Model 2. Increase from hesitancy/reluctance to high acceptance (ref. stayed low)
	N: 330		N: 144
	aOR^a	[90% CI]^b	aOR	[90% CI]
Characteristics
Gender (ref. Male)
Female	1.01	[0.42,2.43]	0.25**	[0.09,0.68]
Age (ref. >50 years)
50 to 59	0.38*	[0.15,0.98]	2.49	[0.84,7.40]
≥ 60	0.41	[0.14,1.26]	0.54	[0.12,2.46]
Occasional practice of complementary and alternative medicine (ref. No)
Yes	1.14	[0.30,4.34]	1.94	[0.59,6.39]
Personal vaccination
Vaccinated against seasonal influenza for the winter 2019/20 season (ref. No)
Yes	0.37	[0.10,1.38]	0.60	[0.17,2.15]
Trust in the Ministry of health, in October-November 2020
I trust the ministry of health to ensure the safety of vaccines in general (ref. Disagree/don’t know)
Agree	0.10****	[0.04,0.23]	1.08	[0.41,2.84]
Perceived risks, in October-November 2020
Perceived medical severity, for the population, of the Covid-19 epidemic (ref. Low)
High/moderate	1.00	[0.38,2.63]	7.56***	[2.20,26.03]
The safety of a vaccine developed in an emergency, during an epidemic, cannot be considered guaranteed (ref. Disagree)
Agree	3.23**	[1.45,7.20]	0.27*	[0.09,0.81]
Don’t know	3.57	[0.83,15.35]	0.16*	[0.03,0.80]

^aAdjusted Odds Ratios; ^b 90% Confidence Interval.

p-values: * p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01; **** p < .001

Due to the limited number of observations in the models, we used 90% confidence intervals.