https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0366-2160
Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeCorrection to Attwell et al. (2021)
Posted by KatieAttwell on 03 Mar 2021 at 03:12 GMT
In the article “Converting the maybes: Crucial for a successful COVID-19 vaccination strategy” by Katie Attwell, Joshua Lake, Joanne Sneddon, Paul Gerrans, Chris Blyth and Julie Lee (Plos One, January 20, 2021, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1371/j... there was an error in Table 1 and in the second paragraph of the Results.
The first row of Table 1 had an incorrect coefficient and confidence interval under the RRR No vs Yes column. The correct statistics for “Flu injection intention” in the “RRR No vs Yes” column should be:
β: 4.39 *** [3.31, 5.81], instead of the reported reciprocal 0.23***[0.17,0.30].
The second paragraph of the “Results” section, reported statistics from the wrong column. The first sentence of the paragraph should read as follows (corrected values in bold):
Respondents were more likely (RRR>1) to be in the COVID-19 vaccine ‘maybe’ than ‘yes’ group, if they (a) perceived COVID-19 disease to be less severe (RRR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.29), (b) had less trust in science (RRR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.27), (c) were less willing to have a flu vaccine (RRR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.81 to 2.55) and (d) were female (RRR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.47 to 2.64).