RR:C19 Evidence Scale rating by reviewer:
Reliable. The main study claims are generally justified by its methods and data. The results and conclusions are likely to be similar to the hypothetical ideal study. There are some minor caveats or limitations, but they would/do not change the major claims of the study. The study provides sufficient strength of evidence on its own that its main claims should be considered actionable, with some room for future revision.
This study presents findings from a survey administered to adults receiving COVID-19 vaccination at community health center in San Francisco’s Mission District, who were also parents of children ≤15 years of age. The survey assessed if parents were hesitant or motivated to get their children vaccinated as soon as vaccines were approved by the FDA. Given that respondents were recruited at a community center while getting a vaccine or test for themselves, it is not surprising that 93% of them would vaccinate their children. Also only 53% of parents completed the survey.
I understand the need to be inclusive with authorship, especially working in communities, however, this 1500-word submission has 18 authors. That seems excessive. Do all 8 of the UCSF authors need to be on this list? Having worked in the Mission District myself, I think you need to better describe the context of the study and services provided by the community center. The Mission is a vibrant cultural center / haven for the large Latinx population in the Bay Area. Describe it more – that it is only a few blocks, a lot of poverty, a lot of undocumented immigrants, and I suspect immigrants who do not want to get vaccinated for fears of being deported, and probably a lot more gentrification. Paint a better picture of its vibrancy yet poverty, distrust (especially after the last Administration), inequities from gentrification. Working in underserved communities requires a lot of trust building and collaboration that goes beyond CBPR and team science - especially in the wake of COVID. It can take years to establish. Describe what you did to gain that trust and more about the collaboration. Also provide a little background about the unethical fertility study among Latinas to give context for why fertility comes up.
Spell out University of California San Francisco the first time it’s used – do the same for UCBerkeley, etc.
The very first sentence of the results is confusing.
Use consistent terminology for vaccinating children. It is referred to vaccine motivation, vaccine acceptance, and vaccine hesitancy. Also clearly define. What was the actual question and all responses in addition to “definitely” and “probably”?
Don’t publish the zipcode in the table – “zipcode of study site” “primary zipcode in the Mission”
I don’t know if the map is necessary, but if you keep it, hone in on San Francisco and Daly City. The East Bay doesn’t need to be in it. Perhaps add a star where the centers were. What does the red dot mean?
Tone down the graphs –it’s hard to take in the findings.
“Multivariate” should be “multivariable”
Put the regression findings in a table. What is the rationale for the variables that were included in the adjusted model? Consider adding unadjusted ratios too.
Last – the quotes do not add to the paper and they are not described well in the methods. They seem hand-picked and anecdotal.
Since our solicitation of reviews, this preprint has been published in Liberty Publications journal and the link to the published manuscript can be found here.