COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy

Download (PDF 520KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Bexley carried out research into COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. They collected the views of 675 residents through a survey which ran from 15th December 2020 to 11th January 2021. They also virtually attended group meetings for residents with a learning disability, a Nepalese Community Group and worked with a homeless shelter provider to discuss vaccination hesitancy, they reached over 40 people this way.

The majority of residents who completed the survey wanted to be vaccinated or had already been vaccinated. However, approximately half of the unvaccinated residents do not feel they are at risk of catching COVID-19. Common concerns raised were around vaccine safety, effectiveness, make-up and long-term effects, with residents wanting more information or to talk to their GP before agreeing to vaccination.

On the basis of this research Healthwatch Bexley recommends that communication and engagement from the London Borough of Bexley, South East London Clinical Commissioning Group and local partners should continue during the COVID-19 vaccination program to address vaccine hesitancy and address the following: commonly asked questions, fear and confusion based on media stories and social, religions or cultural beliefs. The reasons residents have the vaccine, framed in a positive way. Resident’s perceived perception of their risk of COVID-19 such as following government guidelines being enough protection. How herd immunity works in protection the population and promoting a collective approach and a sense of duty rather than a personal approach.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
COVID-19 Vaccination Hesitancy
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Bexley
Date of publication 
Friday, 26 February, 2021
Date evidence capture began 
Tuesday, 15 December, 2020
Date evidence capture finished 
Monday, 11 January, 2021
Type of report 
Public opinion
Key themes 
Cleanliness hygiene and infection control
Communication between staff and patients
Public involvement
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
What type of organisation requested the work 
Primary research method used 
How was the information collected? 
Engagement Event
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
GP practice
Community services 

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
All people 18 and over
Non binary
Mixed / multiple ethnic groups
Specific ethnicity if known 
Any other Black/African/Caribbean background
Any other Mixed/Multiple ethnic background
Any other White background
English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Other population characteristics 
Homeless people
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Not applicable
Does the information include staff's views? 
Not applicable
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.