Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
  • Log out
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Family Physicians' Perception of the New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

Samuel Ofei-Dodoo, Rick Kellerman and Taylor Russell
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine September 2021, 34 (5) 898-906; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2021.05.210052
Samuel Ofei-Dodoo
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS (SO-D); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (RK); Family Medicine Residency at Via Christi Hospitals, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (TR).
PhD, MPA, MA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rick Kellerman
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS (SO-D); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (RK); Family Medicine Residency at Via Christi Hospitals, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (TR).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Taylor Russell
From the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, Wichita, KS (SO-D); Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (RK); Family Medicine Residency at Via Christi Hospitals, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (TR).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: This study was conducted to assess family physicians' perception of the US Food and Drug Administration-approved mRNA Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, their plans to be vaccinated with an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and their support for vaccination of patients and family members.

Methods: The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey of 307 practicing family physicians, full-time faculty physicians, and resident physicians in Kansas from December 14, 2020, to December 31, 2020. The study participants completed an anonymous, 20-item survey assessing family physicians' concerns about exposure to COVID-19 and their perceptions of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to control SARS-CoV-2. A mixed-method approach was used to collect, analyze, and interpret the data.

Results: There was a 51.1% response rate. The proportion of family physicians who reported their intentions to be vaccinated for COVID-19 was significantly higher than those who were hesitant to receive the mRNA vaccines (90.6% vs 9.4%; χ2 [1, n = 307] = 201.9.1; P < .0001). Among those who were willing to be vaccinated with an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, the main reasons were to prevent COVID-19 infection; protect self, family, and community; contribute to herd immunity; inspire confidence that the vaccines are safe and end the pandemic and bring life back to normal.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest a significantly positive association between a physician's concerns and their willingness to be vaccinated with an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. With the authorization of 2 new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, future studies should investigate the number of physicians in our study who received the vaccine.

  • COVID-19
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Family Medicine
  • Family Physicians
  • Herd Immunity
  • Kansas
  • mRNA
  • Pandemics
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Vaccines

Introduction

Since its introduction into the human population in late 2019, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread rapidly with vast global implications. By January 9, 2021, over 87 million total confirmed cases of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and over 1.9 million confirmed deaths had been reported globally, with the United States alone accounting for 22,102,069 confirmed cases and 371,084 deaths.1,2 The number of cases began to rise sharply in Midwestern states during November 2020, affecting cities and small towns, with daily case rates surpassing 4,600 per 100,000 people in the state of Kansas, compared with just over 2,000 per 100,000 at the beginning of October 2020.2 Health care professionals, including those in primary care specialties such as family medicine, are among those working on the frontlines in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.3,4

As the world struggles with the widespread infection, the scientific community has raced to find answers to control the spread and devastating consequences of the SARS-CoV-2. On December 11, 2020, and December 18, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued emergency use authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, respectively for the prevention of severe symptoms of COVID-19 in individuals 16 years and older.5,6 The EUA allowed the vaccines to be distributed and used in the United States. Despite the unprecedented efforts by the scientific community to ensure that the vaccines were safe and efficacious, the widespread uptake of the COVID-19 vaccination had been undermined by vaccine hesitancy, similar to prior studies about vaccines where there was variable and inconsistent compliance.7⇓⇓⇓⇓–12 Successful immunization programs require widespread public education campaigns by trusted stakeholders, such as primary care physicians. Prior studies have shown that physicians are the most trusted source of immunization information,12⇓⇓–15 suggesting that physicians are a valuable source of knowledge to drive acceptance of the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In addition to educating patients about the safety and efficacy of the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, vaccination of health care providers is important in controlling the spread of the virus and role-modeling vaccine acceptance.

Given that physicians are a trusted source of information about vaccine acceptance, the purposes of this study were to assess family physicians' perception of the FDA approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, their plans to be vaccinated with an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and their support for vaccination of patients and family members. We evaluated the concerns family physicians have about themselves, family, and patients becoming infected with COVID-19. We hypothesized that the family physicians' concerns about their personal risk of acquiring COVID-19 infections would directly relate to their compliance with personally receiving an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

Study Design and Participants

This study was a cross-sectional survey of practicing family physicians, full-time faculty physicians, and resident physicians of the 3 family medicine residencies sponsored by the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita (KUSM-W) Department of Family and Community Medicine (DFCM). The questionnaire focused on physician perceptions of the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines used to prevent severe symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The study used a mixed-method approach to collect, analyze, and interpret the data.16 The quantitative approach allowed the authors to obtain value-free and objective insights into the respondents' opinions about the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In contrast, the qualitative approach allowed for an in-depth understanding of those insights. The KUSM Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Study Instrument and Data Collection Process

We used a 20-item questionnaire (Appendix) to assess family physicians' concerns about exposure to COVID-19 and their perceptions of the FDA authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to control SARS-CoV-2. Several information sources were used to generate and select the questions. First, the questions were created based on study goals. The generated questions were reviewed by a family physician and a research scientist to ensure that the questions had face validity. The questionnaire was hosted on SurveyMonkey® (SVMK Inc., San Mateo, CA), a secure web-based survey system. A generated link to the 20-item survey was sent via e-mail to 601 potential participants. We utilized an e-mail system called FM-RADIO (Family Medicine Research And Data, Information, and Outcomes Practice-Based Research Network) as a survey collection tool. The FM-RADIO is an electronic practice-based research network comprised of actively practicing family physicians throughout the state of Kansas who are KUSM-W family medicine residency program graduates, family physician non-KUSM-W graduates, faculty physicians, and resident physicians. The potential participants were on the FM-RADIO list.

As a standard practice, the physicians who opened 1 of 3 e-mail invitations were considered to have received the invitation to participate in the study.17⇓–19 Overall, 375 physicians opened at least 1 of the e-mail invitations and were considered to have received the invitation to participate. Participation was voluntary, and responses were anonymous. Data collection occurred from December 14, 2020, to December 31, 2020. No compensation was provided to participants.

Statistical Analyses

Quantitative Data

Standard descriptive statistics were used to create a demographic profile of the respondents. Associations between the variables were evaluated using a Likelihood-Ratio (or Fisher exact test when cell sizes were <5). For statistical analysis purposes, the respondents' perceived concerns about becoming infected with COVID-19 were clustered into 3 groups (extreme concern, moderate concern, and slight concern [combination of somewhat, slightly, and not at all concerned]). Then the Likelihood-Ratio test was used to evaluate the relationship between the clustered concern groups and family physicians' decisions to receive an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (yes/no [combination of maybe and no responses]). A sample size of 100 was calculated as necessary for adequate power (>0.85) to detect significant relationships among the variables with 2 degrees of freedom, P < .05, and 0.3 effect size.20,21 All quantitative analyses were 2-sided with α of 0.05. The IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), version 26, was used for these analyses.

Open-Ended Responses

The study team used an immersion-crystallization approach16,22⇓⇓–25 to analyze the content of open-ended responses individually and in a group meeting. The immersion-crystallization approach offers researchers the opportunity to examine collected data in detail and periodically suspend the immersion process to reflect on emerging findings until consistent themes are identified.16,24 This multidisciplinary team was composed of a health psychologist (SO-D), a family physician (RK), and a family medicine resident (TR).

Results

Respondent Characteristics

Of the 375 family physicians who opened the e-mail invitation, 307 completed all or most of the survey for a participation rate of 69.2%. Of the 601 potential participants, 307 responded to the survey for a response rate of 51.1%. Table 1 represents the demographic information of the respondents. The average age of respondents was 46.6 years (standard deviation, 13.1), 54.9% were male, 76.4% were practicing physicians, and 46.5% practiced primarily in Sedgwick County; all others practiced in a total of 51 counties in Kansas. Slightly over 11% reported that they had either received a positive COVID-19 test or were diagnosed with COVID-19. Just over 90% of the respondents expressed their intentions to be vaccinated for COVID-19. There was a ± 4.69% margin of error at a 95% confidence level between the study sample and the population of all family physicians in Kansas, demonstrating that our sample generally represented the population of family physicians in Kansas.26

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Respondent Characteristics (N = 307)

Quantitative Results

The proportion of family physicians who reported their intentions to be vaccinated for COVID-19 was significantly higher than those who were hesitant to receive the mRNA vaccines (90.6% vs 9.4%; χ2 [1, n = 307] = 201.9.1; P < .0001). Respondents listed several reasons for their decisions. In addition, the proportion of family physicians who would recommend an approved COVID-19 vaccine to patients was significantly higher than those who were hesitant to recommend the vaccine (94.9% vs 5.1%; χ2 [1, n = 293] = 237.1; P < .0001).

As Table 2 shows, 73% of the respondents reported extreme/moderate concern that they would personally become infected with COVID-19. Fisher exact test showed a significant association between respondents' perceived concerns about personally becoming infected with COVID-19 and their decision to be vaccinated with an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (χ2 [2, n = 307] = 13.35; P < .01; Cramer's V = 0.21; Table 3a). As shown in Table 3b, follow-up pairwise comparisons showed significant pairwise differences between the clustered extreme concern group and the slight concern group and between the moderate concern group and the slight concern group. The greater the level of concern about personal exposure to COVID-19, the more likely a family physician's intention to be vaccinated for COVID-19.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Respondents' Concerns About the COVID-19 Infection (N = 307)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3a.

Relationship Between Respondents' Perceived Concerns About Becoming Infected with COVID-19 and Decision To Be Vaccinated with an Approved mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3b.

Results for Pairwise Comparison Using the Holm Sequential Bonferroni Method

Qualitative Results

Family Physicians Who Intend to Be Vaccinated with an Approved COVID-19 Vaccine

Nearly 91% of 307 respondents reported their intention to be vaccinated with an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Seven themes about support for the COVID-19 vaccination emerged from the qualitative analyses: prevent COVID-19 infection; protect self, family, community; contribute to herd immunity; inspire confidence that the vaccines are safe; end the pandemic and bring life to normal; belief in science and vaccine safety; and the vaccine is less risky than contracting COVID (Table 4a).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4a.

Open-Ended Comments on Reasons Family Physicians' Intend to Receive an Approved mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Family Physicians Who Were Resistant to Be Vaccinated with an Approved mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Nearly 8% of 307 respondents indicated their hesitancy to receive the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Four themes emerged from the qualitative analyses: concerns about safety and adverse side effects, previous COVID-19 infection, low risk, and other reasons (Table 4b).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4b.

Open-Ended Comments on Reasons Family Physicians Are Resistant to Receiving an Approved mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

Only 5 of 307 (1.6%) respondents indicated their outright refusal of the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines because they just “do not want it.”

Discussion

Our study has demonstrated that family physicians in Kansas have a positive perception of the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines as safe and efficacious against COVID-19 infections. A significantly high proportion (90.6%) of the physicians expressed their intention to receive an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Among those who were willing to be vaccinated with an approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, the main reasons were to prevent spread of the infection; protect self, family, and others against COVID-19; contribute to herd immunity; and end the pandemic. Interestingly, several physicians indicated that they intended to be vaccinated with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to inspire confidence that the vaccine is safe, a reason consistent with recommended strategies to drive vaccine acceptance.13

Only 1.6% of physicians expressed their outright rejection of the vaccines because they simply did not want the vaccination. The reasons for objection to COVID-19 vaccination by family physicians were consistent with prior studies documenting vaccination hesitancy among different populations.12,27,28

Nearly 8% of physicians indicated their hesitancy to receive the vaccine for various reasons, including concerns about safety and adverse side effects, existing immunity due to prior COVID-19 infections, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. While concerns are understandable, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices have reviewed data on the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and determined them to be safe and effective in reducing potential infection with COVID-19 among individuals 16 years of age and older.29⇓⇓⇓⇓–34 Subsequent studies have shown that the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in preventing severe COVID-19 illness among individuals 16 years and older.34⇓–36

Regarding hesitancy due to pregnancy and breastfeeding, the CDC, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommend that the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to pregnant and breastfeeding individuals, even though there are limited data about the safety of the vaccines for this population subset.29,37⇓–39 Some physicians who were hesitant to receive the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines assumed they have natural immunity to the infection due to a prior COVID-19 infection. There is a lack of complete data on the duration of immunity provided by natural infection or vaccination.30,31 While more data are being collected; the CDC advises that both natural and vaccine-induced immunity are important to control the spread of COVID-19 infection.30 More efforts to overcome perceived barriers to the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are needed.

Physician perception of the positive benefits and safety of the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may improve the general public's confidence in the vaccine, especially for those who are unsure about safety and effectiveness and may encourage the public to be vaccinated against COVID-19.27,28 This is especially relevant given that physicians are regarded as a trusted source of vaccination information.12⇓⇓–15,40

We hypothesized that the family physicians' concerns about their personal risk of exposure to COVID-19 infections would encourage compliance with personally receiving the approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Our findings showed that a high proportion of the physicians were extremely/moderately concerned about becoming infected and subsequently infecting patients and family members. These concerns have been expressed by other frontline health care providers battling the pandemic.33,41⇓–43 Our findings suggest a significantly positive association between a physician's concerns and their willingness to be vaccinated with an approved COVID-19 vaccine. This finding makes sense given that family physicians are working on the frontline of the pandemic, have a high risk of contracting COVID-19, and witness the devastating consequences of COVID-19.3,27,41,42 Vaccinations prevent both viral infections and illnesses.43,44 One way to slow down the spread of COVID-19 infections and return to some sense of normalcy is through the COVID-19 vaccinations. Family physicians' positive perception of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, their intention to receive, and their advocacy for the vaccines should be reassuring to the public.

Study Limitations

Our study has limitations. The survey presents a snapshot of the physicians' subjective responses. The survey instrument was not previously validated, but measures were taken to ensure that it has face validity. In addition, the study relied on self-reported data collected in the form of an online survey and may have been influenced by recall and selection biases. As this is a cross-sectional study, we could not establish a causal relationship between concerns about personally contracting COVID-19 and respondent intention for COVID-19 vaccination; nor can we know whether one preceded the other. Additional research is warranted. Finally, the study population was limited to a specific geographic area, though, for the purposes of this study, family physicians in Kansas were the target population.

As the world continues to grapple with the pandemic, COVID-19 vaccination is the next and necessary step to protect Americans, reduce the impact of the pandemic, and return life to normal. The high proportion of surveyed physicians willing to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is encouraging and should be reassuring to the public regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Public health efforts to encourage COVID-19 vaccination could use this information to encourage vaccination and overcome vaccine hesitancy. With the authorization of 2 new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, future studies should investigate the number of physicians in our study who went on to receive the vaccine.

Appendix

Appendix.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Appendix.

Survey of Family Physicians and mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: None.

  • Conflict of interest: None.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/34/5/898.full.

  • Received for publication February 5, 2021.
  • Revision received April 27, 2021.
  • Accepted for publication May 13, 2021.

References

  1. 1.↵
    World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. Available at: https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed December 15, 2020.
  2. 2.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Coronavirus 2019. Case of coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html. Accessed December 15, 2020.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ofei-Dodoo S,
    2. Loo-Gross C,
    3. Kellerman R
    . Burnout, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress among family physicians in Kansas responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021; May–Jun;34(3):522–530.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Stokes EK,
    2. Zambrano LD,
    3. Anderson KN,
    4. et al
    . Coronavirus Disease 2019 case surveillance — United States, January 22–May 30, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:759–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine. Accessed December 15, 2020.
  6. 6.↵
    United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA Takes Additional Action in Fight Against COVID-19 By Issuing Emergency Use Authorization for Second COVID-19 Vaccine. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-additional-action-fight-against-covid-19-issuing-emergency-use-authorization-second-covid. Accessed December 18, 2020.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Omer SB,
    2. Salmon DA,
    3. Orenstein WA,
    4. DeHart MP,
    5. Halsey N
    . Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1981–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Dubé E,
    2. Vivion M,
    3. Sauvageau C,
    4. Gagneur A,
    5. Gagnon R,
    6. Guay M
    . “Nature does things well, why should we interfere?”: vaccine hesitancy among mothers. Qual Health Res 2016;26:411–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Grandahl M,
    2. Oscarsson M,
    3. Stenhammar C,
    4. Nevéus T,
    5. Westerling R,
    6. Tydén T
    . Not the right time: why parents refuse to let their daughters have the human papillomavirus vaccination. Acta Paediatr 2014;103:436–41.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Luthy KE,
    2. Beckstrand RL,
    3. Meyers CJ
    . Common perceptions of parents requesting personal exemption from vaccination. J Sch Nurs 2013;29:95–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Harmsen IA,
    2. Mollema L,
    3. Ruiter RA,
    4. Paulussen TG,
    5. de Melker HE,
    6. Kok G
    . Why parents refuse childhood vaccination: a qualitative study using online focus groups. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1183.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Kaiser Family Foundation. KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: December 2020. Available at: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/. Accessed January 11, 2021.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Shen SC,
    2. Dubey V
    . Addressing vaccine hesitancy: clinical guidance for primary care physicians working with parents. Can Fam Physician 2019;65:175–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Chung Y,
    2. Schamel J,
    3. Fisher A,
    4. Frew PM
    . Influences on immunization decision-making among US parents of young children. Matern Child Health J 2017;21:2178–87.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Freed GL,
    2. Clark SJ,
    3. Butchart AT,
    4. Singer DC,
    5. Davis MM
    . Sources and perceived credibility of vaccine-safety information for parents. Pediatrics 2011 May;127 Suppl 1:S107–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Tashakkori A,
    2. Teddlie C
    1. Creswell JW
    . Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (Eds.). Sage Handbook Of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010: 45–68.
  17. 17.↵
    1. Dyrbye LN,
    2. West CP,
    3. Satele D,
    4. et al
    . Burnout among U.S. medical students, residents, and early career physicians relative to the general U.S. population. Acad Med 2014;89:443–51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Available at: https://www.esomar.org/what-we-do/code-guidelines/AAPOR-Standard-Definitions-Final-Dispositions-of-Case-Codes-and-Outcome-Rates-for-Surveys. Accessed December 18, 2020.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ofei-Dodoo S,
    2. Kellerman R,
    3. Gilchrist K,
    4. Casey EM
    . Burnout and Quality of Life among Active Member Physicians of the Medical Society of Sedgwick County. kjm 2019 May 15;12:33–9.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Statistics Kingdom. Chi-square Statistical power calculator. Available at: Available at: http://www.statskingdom.com/34test_power_chi2.html. Accessed December 18, 2020.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Kim HY
    . Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. Restor Dent Endod 2017;42:152–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Ofei-Dodoo S,
    2. Kellerman R,
    3. Nilsen K,
    4. Nutting R,
    5. Lewis D
    . Family physicians' perceptions of electronic cigarettes in tobacco use counseling. J Am Board Fam Med 2017;30:448–59.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ofei-Dodoo S,
    2. Callaway P,
    3. Engels K
    . Prevalence and etiology of burnout in a community-based graduate medical education system: a mixed-methods study. Fam Med 2019;51:766–71.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Denzin NK,
    2. Lincoln YS
    1. Miller WL,
    2. Crabtree BF
    . Clinical Research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (Eds.). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994, pp. 340–52. ISBN: 1483349802.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Ofei-Dodoo S,
    2. Wipperman J,
    3. Nutting R,
    4. Gilchrist K,
    5. Kellerman R
    . Changes in family physicians' perceptions of electronic cigarettes in tobacco use counseling between 2016 and 2019. KJM 2020;13:311–7.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Data Star, Inc. What Every Researcher Should Know About Statistical Significance. 2008. Available at: http://www.surveystar.com/startips/oct2008.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2020.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lin Y,
    2. Hu Z,
    3. Zhao Q,
    4. Alias H,
    5. Danaee M,
    6. Wong LP
    . Understanding COVID-19 vaccine demand and hesitancy: a nationwide online survey in China. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2020;14:e0008961.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Schmid P,
    2. Rauber D,
    3. Betsch C,
    4. Lidolt G,
    5. Denker ML
    . Barriers of influenza vaccination intention and behavior - a systematic review of influenza vaccine hesitancy, 2005-2016. PLoS One 2017;12:e0170550.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Mayo Clinic. COVID-19 vaccines: Get the facts. Available at: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-vaccine/art-20484859. Accessed January 8, 2021.
  30. 30.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Facts about COVID-19 Vaccines. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html. Accessed January 8, 2021.
  31. 31.↵
    1. Peiris M,
    2. Leung GM
    . What can we expect from first-generation COVID-19 vaccines? Lancet 2020;396:1467–9.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ensuring the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in the United States. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety.html. Accessed January 8, 2021.
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ng K,
    2. Poon BH,
    3. Kiat Puar TH,
    4. et al
    . COVID-19 and the risk to health care workers: a case report. Ann Intern Med 2020;172:766–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Walsh EE,
    2. Frenck RW Jr.,
    3. Falsey AR,
    4. et al
    . Safety and immunogenicity of two RNA-based Covid-19 vaccine candidates. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2439–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Baden LR,
    2. El Sahly HM,
    3. Essink B,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 30]. N Engl J Med 2021;384:403–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Oliver S,
    2. Gargano J,
    3. Marin M,
    4. et al
    . The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' Interim Recommendation for Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine — United States, December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;69:1653–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.↵
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vaccination Considerations for People who are Pregnant or Breastfeeding. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html. Accessed January 8, 2021.
  38. 38.↵
    American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Vaccinating Pregnant and Lactating Patients Against COVID-19, December 2020. Available at: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2020/12/vaccinating-pregnant-and-lactating-patients-against-covid-19. Accessed January 8, 2021.
  39. 39.↵
    Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Experts in High-Risk Pregnancy Respond to the FDA's Decision to Offer the Newly Approved COVID-19 Vaccine to Pregnant and Lactating People: Healthcare Workers Among the First Expected to Be Impacted. December 2020. Available at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.smfm.org/media/2632/FDA_final.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2021.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Dror AA,
    2. Eisenbach N,
    3. Taiber S,
    4. et al
    . Vaccine hesitancy: the next challenge in the fight against COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2020;35:775–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Karlsson U,
    2. Fraenkel CJ
    . Covid-19: risks to healthcare workers and their families. BMJ 2020;371:m3944.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Sim MR
    . The COVID-19 pandemic: major risks to healthcare and other workers on the front line. Occup Environ Med 2020;77:281–2.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Roush SW,
    2. Murphy TV
    , Vaccine-Preventable Disease Table Working Group. Historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States. JAMA 2007;298:2155–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Pandolfi F,
    2. Franza L,
    3. Todi L,
    4. et al
    . The importance of complying with vaccination protocols in developed countries: “Anti-Vax” hysteria and the spread of severe preventable diseases. Curr Med Chem 2018;25:6070–81.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family   Medicine: 34 (5)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 34, Issue 5
September/October 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Family Physicians' Perception of the New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Family Physicians' Perception of the New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines
Samuel Ofei-Dodoo, Rick Kellerman, Taylor Russell
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2021, 34 (5) 898-906; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.05.210052

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Family Physicians' Perception of the New mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines
Samuel Ofei-Dodoo, Rick Kellerman, Taylor Russell
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2021, 34 (5) 898-906; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.05.210052
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Practical Clinical Topics, Digging Deeper into COVID-19, Social Determinants of Health, and Equity
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Pilot Comparison of Clinical Data Collection Methods Using Paper, Electronic Health Record Prompt, and a Smartphone Application
  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
  • Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Family Medicine
  • Family Physicians
  • Herd Immunity
  • Kansas
  • mRNA
  • Pandemics
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Vaccines

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire