ABSTRACT
We conducted an online survey of Alaskan adults between May and June, 2022 to identify factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Of the 948 respondents, approximately 80% reported having received a COVID-19 vaccine. The factors significantly associated with ever receiving COVID-19 vaccine include perceived risk of harm if not vaccinated (PRH), the vaccination status of the respondent’s social network (SNW), gender, and education. For each point increase in PRH score, there was more than three times the odds of having ever been vaccinated (OR = 3.42, p < 0.001); and for every point increase in SNW score, there was more than two times the odds of having ever been vaccinated (OR = 2.15, p < 0.001). Males had more than four times the odds of having ever been vaccinated compared to females (OR = 4.55, p < 0.001). Those with a college degree (OR = 2.80, p < 0.05) had greater odds of ever being vaccinated compared to their counterparts. Findings from this sample suggest that, among Alaskans, ever receiving a COVID-19 vaccine is associated with having a majority of their close social networks who have received COVID-19 vaccine and perceiving that not obtaining a COVID-19 vaccine can pose greater risk of harm to themselves than not getting vaccinated. Practical implications of these findings are provided.
Acknowledgments
The research team thanks the Alaska Survey Research for assistance in the data collection. Additionally, the team thanks Dr. Joy Mapaye (UAA Journalism and Public Communications) and Ms. Rebecca Van Wyck (UAA Institute for Social and Economic Research) for providing research support and consultation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
The data associated with this study may be shared with investigator and institutional approval.
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2023.2205681).