COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the LGBTQ+ Population: A Systematic Review
, Ramsha Abbas 4, Samir Mirza 5, Muhammad Ali Javaid 5, Suman Pal 6, Rahul Shekhar 6 and Abu Baker Sheikh 6,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Great work!
Author Response
Comment 1) Great work!
Response: Thank you for your valuable comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addresse a timely and relevant question.
However, most of the statements are not supported by any evidence.
The factors considered influencing vaccine hesitancy in this case are fuzzy.
Many references are not considered such as
Why are some people reluctant to be vaccinated for COVID-19? A cross-sectional survey among U.S. Adults in May-June 2020. Allen, J.D., Feng, W., Corlin, L., (...), Fu, Q., Stopka, T.J. Preventive Medicine Reports 24 (2021), 101494.
The urgent need for integrated science to fight COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Moradian, N., Ochs, H.D., Sedikies, C., (...), Mobasher, B., Rezaei, N. Journal of Translational Medicine 18 (2020),205.
Interdisciplinary Approaches to COVID-19. Moradian, N., Moallemian, M., Delavari, F., (...), Mobasher, B., Rezaei, N. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1318 (2021), pp. 923-936.
Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine trust and hesitancy among adults with chronic conditions. Arvanitis, M., Opsasnick, L., O'Conor, R., (...), Jean-Jacques, M., Wolf, M.S. Preventive Medicine Reports 24 (2021), 101484.
Most of the data reported on the LGBTQ+ community was collected from the USA and Canada. What about Europe and other areas?
Author Response
Comment 1) Many references are not considered such as
Why are some people reluctant to be vaccinated for COVID-19? A cross-sectional survey among U.S. Adults in May-June 2020. Allen, J.D., Feng, W., Corlin, L., (...), Fu, Q., Stopka, T.J. Preventive Medicine Reports 24 (2021), 101494.
The urgent need for integrated science to fight COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Moradian, N., Ochs, H.D., Sedikies, C., (...), Mobasher, B., Rezaei, N. Journal of Translational Medicine 18 (2020),205.
Interdisciplinary Approaches to COVID-19. Moradian, N., Moallemian, M., Delavari, F., (...), Mobasher, B., Rezaei, N. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1318 (2021), pp. 923-936.
Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine trust and hesitancy among adults with chronic conditions. Arvanitis, M., Opsasnick, L., O'Conor, R., (...), Jean-Jacques, M., Wolf, M.S. Preventive Medicine Reports 24 (2021), 101484.
Most of the data reported on the LGBTQ+ community was collected from the USA and Canada. What about Europe and other areas?
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestions. The references Allen et al., and Arvanitis et al., have been added in discussion to expand on vaccine hesitancy-related factors. Table 1 has been modified to include the countries in which the surveys were conducted. These countries include parts of Europe (for example, Germany) and other areas (Turkey, Poland etc.)
Reviewer 3 Report
I read with great interest the manuscript by Ishan Garg et al. presenting the Vaccine Hesitancy phenomenon within the LGBTQ+ community. I believe the topic is of great interest and, above all, the focus on sexual and gender minorities is innovative.
However, I feel that the manuscript needs extensive revision from a methodological point of view.
In general, a scientific article should be divided into introduction (perhaps with subsections), methods, results and discussion sections. In the current version of the manuscript some of these sections are missing or have been condensed into one.
Introduction:
L76-69, L81-85, please indicate where the studies were carried out.
L173-L175, please provide some references.
Methods:
Trying to use the given search string does not yield the number of studies that is reported.
Only studies that indicated a non-binary option in their questions were considered in the discussion; why did the authors not include this condition as a necessary condition in the inclusion criteria of the review?
Figure 1/Flow chart should also be modified accordingly.
I would place the results table in the body of the manuscript and not in the supplementary material.
The table should be implemented with additional data (e.g. the year and the state in which the study was carried out, especially for studies with more than one state).
I think the whole section needs to be rewritten and improved.
L215-283 are included in the methods but are about results.
In the discussion part, references to scientific literature supporting the authors' statements are very often missing (e.g. L271-274; L279-281).
L333-360: please avoid overstatements like "must be implemented", "must be" etc.
As said, the topic is very interesting and I am sure it needs to be studied.
I hope the authors will consider resubmitting the manuscript after an extensive revision.
Author Response
Comment 1) Introduction:
L76-69, L81-85, please indicate where the studies were carried out. L173-L175, please provide some references.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The subheadings have been added to the discussion to expand on the findings of the review. The countries of study (Africa, Southeast Asia, etc.) have been added to the sentences.
Comment 2) Methods:
Trying to use the given search string does not yield the number of studies that are reported.
Only studies that indicated a non-binary option in their questions were considered in the discussion; why did the authors not include this condition as a necessary condition in the inclusion criteria of the review? Figure 1/Flow chart should also be modified accordingly.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The inclusion criteria have been modified to include only the LGBTQ+ population in addition to the other criteria specified. PRISMA flowchart has been revised to show the updated numbers.
Comment 3) I would place the results table in the body of the manuscript and not in the supplementary material.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Table 1 has been added to the main text.
Comment 4) The table should be implemented with additional data (e.g. the year and the state in which the study was carried out, especially for studies with more than one state).
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The table has been revised with the year and country in which the survey had been conducted.
Comment 5) I think the whole section needs to be rewritten and improved.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The results section has been rewritten.
Comment 6) L215-283 are included in the methods but are about results.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. These lines have been added to the results section.
Comment 7) In the discussion part, references to scientific literature supporting the authors' statements are very often missing (e.g. L271-274; L279-281).
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added relevant supporting references.
Comment 8) L333-360: please avoid overstatements like "must be implemented", "must be" etc.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The words ‘must be’ have been replaced by ‘should’ throughout the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This version is not much better than the original one.
I am sorry not to be able to recommend this paper for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking your valuable time for reviewing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is now presented in a much better way. I think it may be suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking your valuable time for reviewing our manuscript.
