Executive Summary
-
As of mid-August 2021, the total number of daily vaccinations started in Ohio are similar to those from January 2021 (Figure 1). The majority of the unvaccinated Ohio adult Medicaid population (CFC and Group-VIII) and the broader Ohio population (19-64) report that they are “not likely at all” to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (Figure 2). Among the small number of unvaccinated adults reporting that they are “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to receive the vaccine, the majority indicate that they will do so within 60 days (Figure 3).
-
Among OCS and MCS adults who are the parent or guardian of a child under the age of 18 in their household, about 1/3 are “not likely at all” to vaccinate their children when the vaccine becomes available to them (Figure 4). Slightly more than 1/3 are “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to vaccine their children.
-
The decline in vaccine hesitancy that occurred in the first half of 2021 has slowed and leveled off in both the MCS and OCS populations, with about 1/3 of adults expressing hesitancy (Figure 5). Vaccine hesitancy remains slightly higher among the Ohio Medicaid population than the general Ohio population, but differences between the two are very small.
-
Among the Ohio Medicaid population, individuals living in suburban counties (Figure 7), those who are non-Hispanic white (Figure 8), and those who are female (Figure 9), all express higher rates of vaccine hesitancy than their counterparts in the broader Ohio population (OCS). The Ohio Medicaid population is generally more non-white and more female than the general Ohio population (Table A1), so these findings help to explain the slightly higher aggregate rate of vaccine hesitancy in the MCS as compared to the OCS (Figure 5). Within both the MCS and OCS, adults ages 55-64 express less vaccine hesitancy than individuals ages 25-54 (Figure 6).
-
Across both populations, among those not vaccinated, strong opposition to the vaccine remains more prevalent than moderate opposition (Figure 10) - about 22% are “not too likely” to get the vaccine (vaccine hesitant), while 52% (MCS) and 59.8% (OCS) are “not likely at all” to get the vaccine (vaccine resistant). This skew toward strong opposition holds within both populations across nearly all demographic subgroups. When comparing non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic white adults, as well as men and women, there are no clear differences in proportions of vaccine hesitancy, or in proportions of vaccine resistance, in either the MCS or OCS (Figures A3, A4). Among the unvaccinated Medicaid population, individuals living in rural non-Appalachian counties are less hesitant, but more resistant, than individuals living in metropolitan counties.
-
In both populations, more than 1/3 of vaccine resistant individuals live in Appalachian or rural non-Appalachian counties (Figures 13, 14). In the MCS, the majority of both vaccine hesitant and vaccine resistant individuals are ages 19-34 (Figure 12) and female (Figure 18). In the broader Ohio population (OCS), about 1/3 of hesitant and resistant individuals are ages 19-34 and another 1/3 are ages 45-64 (Figure 11). In the OCS, a slight majority of vaccine hesitant individuals are male, and a majority of vaccine resistant individuals are female (Figure 17).
-
In both populations (Figures 13, 14), substantially more than half of vaccinated or likely to vaccinate individuals live in metropolitan counties (which is reflective of the demographic makeup of the OCS and MCS). In the MCS, women make up substantially more than half of the vaccinated or likely to vaccinate subgroup (Figure 18). In the OCS, about half of all vaccinated or likely to vaccinate individuals are ages 45-64 (Figure 11), and a slight majority are men (Figure 17).
-
In both populations, nearly half of all adults indicate that they view the depiction of the seriousness of COVID-19 in the news to be generally correct (Figure 19). Among the vaccine resistant in both populations, the vast majority of adults expressed that they found COVID-19 to be exaggerated in the news. In the OCS, the majority of vaccine hesitant individuals found COVID-19 to be exaggerated in the news, while in the MCS, only about 40% of hesitant individuals expressed this same view.
Introduction
Since January 2021, the Medicaid COVID-19 Survey (MCS) and its sibling survey, the Ohio COVID-19 Survey (OCS), have asked respondents questions about their COVID-19 vaccine status and likelihood of receiving the vaccine, when available. The MCS is a representative sample survey of Medicaid enrollees (ages 19+) eligible through the Covered Families and Children (CFC) criteria or Group-VIII expansion in Ohio. The OCS is a representative sample survey of adults (ages 19+) in Ohio. Both surveys are carried out on a bi-weekly basis with rotating sets of respondents. In the MCS, the same groups of respondents are asked to reply to the survey every six iterations (twelve weeks). In the OCS, the same groups of respondents are asked to reply to the survey every four iterations (eight weeks).
Any respondent who reported that they have not yet received the vaccine at the time of survey was asked the following question: “When a COVID-19 vaccine is available to you, how likely are you to get it?” Responses were evaluated on a 4-point scale: “not likely at all,” “not too likely,” “somewhat likely,” or “very likely.” Using these responses, we define “Likely to Vaccinate” as those respondents that indicated that they were “somewhat likely” or “very likely” to receive the vaccine one it was available. We define “Vaccine hesitant” as those respondents who indicated that they had not yet received the vaccine and were “not too likely” or “not likely at all” to receive it once it was available. In the final sections of the report (“Degree of Hesitancy” and “Demographic Characteristics by Vaccination Status”), we distinguish between “vaccine hesitant” and “vaccine resistant” respondents - “vaccine hesitant” is defined as respondents who indicated that they were “not too likely” to receive the vaccine, and “vaccine resistant” is defined as respondents who indicated that they were “not likely at all” to receive it. This narrowing in meaning of the term “vaccine hesitant” is flagged at the beginning of these sections.
This report examines vaccine likelihood in the OCS and MCS, including parents’ reported likelihood of vaccinating their children; hesitancy rates over time and differences in the proportion of individuals who are hesitant versus resistant to the vaccine; demographic characteristics of vaccinated or likely to vaccinate individuals, vaccine hesitant individuals, and vaccine resistant individuals; and views on the way that the seriousness of COVID-19 is depicted in the news. Within this report, the OCS estimates are restricted to the ages 19-64 subpopulation to provide a better comparison with the MCS. Results are reported for data collected through the end of the sixth wave of the MCS (July 26).
Average Daily Vaccinations
Using data from the Ohio Department of Health’s COVID-19 Vaccine Dashboard1 we first calculate the seven-day moving average for daily vaccinations (based on vaccines started) in Ohio. Figure 1 shows that following a large spike in vaccinations in March and April 2021 (peaking at 71,323 vaccinations per day), the seven-day average has returned to rates comparable to those of January 2021. On August 15, 2021, there was (an average of) 9,869 total vaccines started.
Figure 1: Ohio Daily Vaccinations (Started), Seven Day Moving Average
Vaccine Likelihood
Figure 2 shows the estimated likelihood of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine among the unvaccinated OCS (19-64) population, as well as among unvaccinated individuals enrolled in Medicaid (MCS). The majority of unvaccinated individuals report that they are “not likely at all” to receive it, with little difference between the two populations.
Figure 2: Estimated Likelihood of Receiving Vaccine in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among Those Who Have Not Been Vaccinated, June 14-July 26
Vaccination in the Next 60 Days
When an unvaccinated individual responded that they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to receive the vaccine, they were asked the following follow-up question: “Do you plan on getting a COVID-19 vaccination within the next 60 days?” Figure 3 shows estimates for the share of individuals who reported that they intend to get a vaccine in the next two months. While more than half of “likely to Vaccinate” individuals indicated that they would do so soon, it should be noted that confidence intervals for these estimates are quite large (OCS: 52.5%-77.7%; MCS: 56%-71.7%).
Figure 3: Estimated Likelihood of Receiving Vaccine in the Next 60 days, in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among Those Who Are Likely To Get Vaccinated, June 14-July 26
Child Vaccination Likelihood
Respondents who reported that they are the parent or guardian of any children 18 years or younger who live in their household were asked how likely they are to get these children vaccinated for COVID-19 when the vaccine is available for children. Figure 4 shows little differences between the two populations, with the largest share of parents reporting that they are “not likely at all” to have their children vaccinated. Slightly more than 1/3 are “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to vaccine their children.
Figure 4: Estimated Likelihood of Child Receiving Vaccine When it Becomes Available in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among All Respondents Who Are the Parent or Guardian of A Child In Their Household, June 14-July 26
Vaccine Hesitancy Over Time
Figure 5 shows the estimated percentage of adults ages 19-64 who are vaccine hesitant (“not too likely” or “not likely at all” to receive the vaccine) over time in the MCS and OCS respectively. While vaccine hesitancy has exhibited an overall decline since the beginning of 2021, in recent biweeks this downward trend has slowed and started to level off, particularly in the MCS. Since the middle of May 2021, hesitancy among Ohioans enrolled in Medicaid has averaged about 34.7%. Hesitancy in the OCS has consistently remained lower than in the MCS, although differences remain small. Some of the differences between the vaccine hesitancy in MCS and OCS may be because of different demographic characteristics of the two groups - generally, Ohioans enrolled in Medicaid (eligible through CFC criteria or Group-VIII expansion) are slightly younger, more non-white, and more female than the OCS population (Table A1 in Appendix).
Figure 5: Comparison of Estimated Vaccine Hesitancy Over Time in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among All Adults 19-64
We also consider stratifications by four key demographic groups, shown in Figures 6-9. Because the sample sizes for Hispanic, Asian, and “Other” racial-ethnic groups are small, we restrict the comparison for race-ethnicity to just non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic Black. Within each survey, there are few substantial differences by demographic group. Most notably, Figure 6 shows that in the general Ohio population (OCS), adults ages 55-64 express less vaccine hesitancy than individuals ages 25-54. This same pattern holds for the Medicaid population (MCS), in addition to a substantial difference in hesitancy rates between individuals ages 19-24 and individuals ages 55-64. When making comparisons across surveys it is noteworthy that in the MCS, individuals living in suburban counties (Figure 7), individuals who are non-Hispanic white (Figure 8), and individuals who are female (Figure 9), all express higher rates of hesitancy than their OCS counterparts. Considering the aforementioned differences in the demographic makeup of the MCS and OCS, these findings help explain the higher aggregate rates of vaccine hesitancy in the MCS as compared to the OCS, as shown in Figure 5. Note that for each of these estimates, the four demographic variables are not taken into account simultaneously, so it is possible that even within, for example, the MCS-OCS comparison within the suburban county type, the differences are driven by gender and race-ethnicity.
Figure 6: Estimated Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among All Adults 19-64 By Age Group, June 14-July 26
Figure 7: Estimated Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among All Adults 19-64 By County Type, June 14-July 26
Figure 8: Estimated Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among All Adults 19-64 By Race-Ethnicity, June 14-July 26
Figure 9: Estimated Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among All Adults 19-64 By Sex, June 14-July 26
Degree of Hesitancy (Hesitancy vs. Resistance)
In this section, we distinguish between “vaccine hesitant” and “vaccine resistant” respondents - “vaccine hesitant” is defined as respondents who indicated that they were “not too likely” to receive the vaccine, and “vaccine resistant” is defined as respondents who indicated that they were “not likely at all” to receive it. This diverges from the earlier and broader use of the term “vaccine hesitant” to indicate all individuals reporting that they were unlikely to receive the vaccine.
While vaccine hesitancy in a broad sense is an important metric for understanding the likelihood of future vaccine uptake, we also examine degrees of hesitancy in the general Ohio and Ohio Medicaid populations. For each survey, we estimated the proportion of the respective population who were “not too likely” (vaccine hesitant) and “not likely at all” (vaccine resistant) to receive the vaccine, among those who have not been vaccinated. Note that these estimates do not take into consideration any other confounding factors. Figure 10 shows that among both hesitant and resistant unvaccinated individuals, there are no substantial differences between MCS and OCS. For both populations the share of vaccine hesitant individuals is skewed toward strong opposition to getting the vaccine (“not likely at all”), with more than half of unvaccinated Ohioans and more than half of unvaccinated individuals enrolled in Medicaid indicating that they are “not likely at all” to receive the vaccine.
We also examined rates of vaccine hesitancy versus vaccine resistance broken down by demographic subgroups (figures in Appendix). When comparing by age, county type, race-ethnicity, and gender, there are no substantial differences between the MCS and OCS. Within surveys, there are a handful of subgroup differences. Figure A1 shows that, among the unvaccinated Medicaid population (MCS), individuals ages 45-54 are more vaccine hesitant than individuals ages 19-24. Figure A2 shows that in the unvaccinated general Ohio population (OCS) ages 19-64, individuals living in metropolitan counties are more hesitant than individuals living in Appalachian counties. Additionally, among the unvaccinated Medicaid population, individuals living in rural non-Appalachian counties are less hesitant, but more resistant, than individuals living in metropolitan counties. Figure A3 indicates that there are no clear differences in rates of hesitancy and rates of resistance between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic white adults in either the MCS or OCS. There are similarly no clear differences in rates of hesitancy or resistance between men and women in either the MCS or OCS (Figure A4). Finally, the substantially greater proportion of individuals who are vaccine resistant than vaccine hesitant, as shown in aggregate in Figure 10, is a pattern that holds across nearly all demographic subgroups, with the exception of individuals in the OCS who live in rural non-Appalachian counties, individuals ages 19-24 in the OCS, and individuals ages 45-64 in the MCS.
Figure 10: Estimated Degree of Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS Among Those Who Have Not Been Vaccinated, June 14-July 26
Demographic Characteristics by Vaccination Status
In this section, we distinguish between “vaccine hesitant” and “vaccine resistant” respondents - “vaccine hesitant” is defined as respondents who indicated that they were “not too likely” to receive the vaccine, and “vaccine resistant” is defined as respondents who indicated that they were “not likely at all” to receive it. This diverges from the earlier and broader use of the term “vaccine hesitant” to indicate all individuals reporting that they were unlikely to receive the vaccine.
Figures 11-17 and Tables 1-4 show estimates for the demographic distribution of both populations by their vaccination status. Likely to Vaccinate is defined as respondents who indicated that they had not yet received the vaccine and were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to receive it. Vaccine Hesitant is defined as respondents who indicated that they had not yet received the vaccine and were “not too likely” to receive it. Vaccine Resistant is defined as respondents who indicated that they had not yet received the vaccine and were “not likely at all” to receive it. Certain age groups, county types, and racial-ethnic groups were collapsed for estimates where sample sizes were prohibitively small. Estimates for vaccinated and “likely to vaccinate” individuals are shown together due to very small sample sizes for many “likely to vaccinate” subgroups. Margins of error reported in tables represent 90% confidence intervals. These estimates do not control for the share of the subgroup in the broader population (shown in Table A1), and therefore should only be interpreted as a summary of the demographic profile of the median vaccinated/likely to vaccinate, hesitant, or resistant individual in Ohio (19-64) or in the Ohio adult Medicaid population (CFC and Group-VIII).
Figure 11 shows that almost half of all vaccinated or likely to vaccinate individuals in the general Ohio population (OCS) are ages 45-64. Among hesitant and resistant individuals in the OCS, about 1/3 are ages 19-34, and another 1/3 are ages 45-64. In the MCS, the majority of hesitant and resistant individuals are ages 19-34 (Figure 12). Figures 13 and 14 show that substantially more than half of vaccinated/likely to vaccinate and vaccine hesitant individuals in both the MCS and OCS live in metropolitan counties. More than 1/3 of vaccine resistant individuals live in rural counties in both the MCS and OCS. Figures 15 and 16 indicate that the vast majority of individuals in all vaccination subgroups are non-Hispanic white (as opposed to “non-white”, defined as non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian, or “Other”). The racial-ethnic makeup of all vaccination subgroups are fairly similar within the OCS and within the MCS. Figure 17 shows that men make up a slight majority of both vaccinated/likely to vaccinate and hesitant subgroups in the OCS, while the majority of vaccine resistant adults in the general Ohio population are female. Among the Ohio Medicaid population (19-64), women make up substantially more than half of all vaccination subgroups (Figure 18).
Figure 11: Estimated Age Distribution by Vaccination Status in the OCS (19-64), June 14-July 26
Figure 12: Estimated Age Distribution by Vaccination Status in the MCS, June 14-July 26
Table 1A & 1B: Estimated Distribution of Age Groups in the OCS (19-64) and MCS, by Vaccine Status, June 14-July 26
| Variable | Level | OCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | OCS Hesitant | OCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 19-34 | 1,718,453 ± 234,820 | 200,894 ± 88,930 | 526,064 ± 153,820 |
| 35-44 | 944,516 ± 151,060 | 127,815 ± 55,410 | 324,432 ± 94,400 | |
| 45-64 | 2,393,607 ± 186,030 | 174,455 ± 75,940 | 525,058 ± 97,690 | |
| * Margin of errors represent 90% confidence intervals. |
| Variable | Level | MCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | MCS Hesitant | MCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 19-34 | 378,323 ± 46,070 | 81,886 ± 17,220 | 201,402 ± 31,530 |
| 35-44 | 214,588 ± 33,460 | 30,746 ± 8,070 | 92,270 ± 20,460 | |
| 45-64 | 362,218 ± 29,560 | 45,100 ± 11,400 | 66,525 ± 18,910 | |
| * Margin of errors reported in tables represent 90% confidence intervals. |
Figure 13: Estimated County Type Distribution by Vaccination Status in the OCS (19-64), June 14-July 26
Figure 14: Estimated County Type Distribution by Vaccination Status in the MCS, June 14-July 26
Table 2A & 2B: Estimated Distribution of County Type in the OCS (19-64) and MCS, by Vaccine Status, June 14-July 26
| Variable | Level | OCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | OCS Hesitant | OCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County | Metropolitan | 2,952,798 ± 257,970 | 305,186 ± 105,280 | 686,197 ± 166,980 |
| Rural | 1,220,613 ± 142,920 | 148,950 ± 60,430 | 498,546 ± 96,190 | |
| Suburban | 883,164 ± 132,730 | 49,028 ± 41,620* | 190,811 ± 66,120 | |
| * Unreliable estimate due to large relative standard error (51.6%) and small sample (11 observations). | ||||
| † Margin of errors represent 90% confidence intervals. |
| Variable | Level | MCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | MCS Hesitant | MCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County | Metropolitan | 607,313 ± 50,240 | 104,092 ± 19,530 | 185,208 ± 27,750 |
| Rural | 237,516 ± 29,160 | 37,502 ± 8,220 | 126,206 ± 25,010 | |
| Suburban | 110,300 ± 21,960 | 16,138 ± 5,820 | 48,782 ± 19,470 | |
| * Margin of errors represent 90% confidence intervals. |
Figure 15: Estimated Race-Ethnicity Distribution by Vaccination Status in the OCS (19-64), June 14-July 26
Figure 16: Estimated Race-Ethnicity Distribution by Vaccination Status in the MCS, June 14-July 26
Table 3A & 3B: Estimated Distribution of Race-Ethnicity in the OCS (19-64) and MCS, by Vaccine Status, June 14-July 26
| Variable | Level | OCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | OCS Hesitant | OCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race | Non-Hispanic white | 3,871,546 ± 269,720 | 432,877 ± 121,880 | 1,133,330 ± 184,900 |
| Non-white | 1,185,029 ± 173,200 | 70,286 ± 41,650* | 242,223 ± 84,210 | |
| * Unreliable estimate due to large relative standard error (36%) and small sample (16 observations). | ||||
| † Margin of errors represent 90% confidence intervals. |
| Variable | Level | MCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | MCS Hesitant | MCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race | Non-Hispanic white | 589,151 ± 39,390 | 100,955 ± 16,880 | 240,480 ± 35,300 |
| Non-white | 364,964 ± 47,210 | 56,777 ± 14,200 | 119,540 ± 21,950 | |
| * Margin of errors represent 90% confidence intervals. |
Figure 17: Estimated Distribution of Sex by Vaccination Status in the OCS (19-64), June 14-July 26
Figure 18: Estimated Distribution of Sex by Vaccination Status in the MCS, June 14-July 26
Table 4A & 4B: Estimated Distribution of Sex in the OCS (19-64) and MCS, by Vaccine Status, June 14-July 26
| Variable | Level | OCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | OCS Hesitant | OCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 2,587,916 ± 259,950 | 262,686 ± 95,100 | 597,567 ± 126,900 |
| Female | 2,468,659 ± 200,540 | 240,477 ± 86,330 | 777,986 ± 160,170 | |
| * Margin of errors represent 90% confidence intervals. |
| Variable | Level | MCS Vaccinated/Likely to Vaccinate | MCS Hesitant | MCS Resistant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 423,663 ± 51,120 | 48,205 ± 13,000 | 137,975 ± 34,080 |
| Female | 531,466 ± 34,380 | 109,527 ± 17,710 | 222,221 ± 23,840 | |
| * Margin of errors represent 90% confidence intervals. |
COVID-19 in the News
All respondents were asked the following question: “Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view is the seriousness of the COVID-19 coronavirus generally exaggerated, generally correct, or is it generally underestimated?” Figure 19 shows estimates for the share of Ohioans and individuals enrolled in Medicaid (19-64) who expressed that they find the seriousness of COVID-19 to be exaggerated, underestimated, or depicted accurately in the news. Estimates across surveys are comparable, with nearly half of both populations indicating that they view the depiction of COVID-19 in the news to be generally correct.
Figure 20 shows estimates by vaccination status. Among the vaccinated or likely to vaccinate, estimates for MCS and OCS are similar, with the majority of adults indicating that they found the depiction of COVID-19 in the news to be generally correct. Among the vaccine resistant, the vast majority of adults found COVID-19 to be exaggerated in the news. A larger proportion of resistant individuals in the OCS expressed this view than resistant individuals in the MCS. Finally, among the vaccine hesitant in the MCS, fairly comparable proportions of adults viewed COVID-19 as being exaggerated or correctly depicted in thew news (about 40% for each). In contrast, the majority of vaccine hesitant adults in the OCS reported that they found COVID-19 to be exaggerated in the news, while only about 1/4 of hesitant adults in the OCS indicated that they thought coverage was generally correct.
Figure 19: Estimated Views on the Seriousness of COVID-19, Based on What is Said in the News, in the OCS (19-64) and MCS, June 14-July 26
Figure 20: Estimated Views on the Seriousness of COVID-19, Based on What is Said in the News, by Vaccination Status, in the OCS (19-64) and MCS, June 14-July 26
Appendix
Estimated Demographic Characteristics of OCS (19-64) and MCS
| Variable | Level | OCS Estimated Percent | MCS Estimated Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 19-24 | 13.1 | 11.1 |
| 25-34 | 22.1 | 33.6 | |
| 35-44 | 20.1 | 22.9 | |
| 45-54 | 21.4 | 17.5 | |
| 55-64 | 23.2 | 14.8 | |
| County Type | Appalachian | 15.1 | 17.3 |
| Metropolitan | 56.8 | 60.7 | |
| Rural Non-Appalachian | 11.9 | 10.1 | |
| Suburban | 16.2 | 11.8 | |
| Race-Ethnicity | Non-Hispanic white | 78.3 | 63.4 |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 13.1 | 27.6 | |
| Hispanic | 3.4 | 3.6 | |
| Asian | 2.9 | 2.4 | |
| Other | 2.3 | 3.0 | |
| Sex | Male | 49.7 | 41.6 |
| Female | 50.3 | 58.4 |
Degrees of Hesitancy By Demographic Subgroups
Figure A1: Estimated Degree of Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS among those who have not been Vaccinated by Age Group, June 14-July 26
Figure A2: Estimated Degree of Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS among those who have not been Vaccinated by County Type, June 14-July 26
Figure A3: Estimated Degree of Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS among those who have not been Vaccinated by Race-Ethnicity, June 14-July 26
Figure A4: Estimated Degree of Vaccine Hesitancy in the OCS (19-64) and MCS among those who have not been Vaccinated by Sex, June 14-July 26
Additional Information
The MCS is sponsored by a partnership between the Ohio Department of Medicaid’s Medicaid Technical Assistance and Policy Program (MEDTAPP) and The Ohio State University. The MCS is a subproject of the Ohio Medicaid Community Engagement Evaluation (OMCEE) project, with research contributions from the faculty of The Ohio State University’s College of Public Health and Department of Sociology, Ohio University, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), and the Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center (GRC).
The OCS is sponsored by a partnership between the Ohio Department of Health, the Ohio Department of Medicaid’s Medicaid Technical Assistance and Policy Program (MEDTAPP), and The Ohio State University. The OCS is a subproject of the Ohio Medicaid Assessment Survey (OMAS),2 with research contributions from the faculty of The Ohio State University’s College of Public Health and Department of Sociology, Ohio University, the Ohio Department of Health, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI), and the Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center (GRC).
All inquiries to this brief should be sent to Hilary Rosebrook at hilary.rosebrook@osumc.edu.-
https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/covid-19-vaccine/covid-19-vaccination-dashboard↩︎
-
For information about the OMAS methodology and the complete OMAS Series datasets, please visit the OMAS homepage. Version 1 of the OCS took place from the week of April 20, 2020 to the week of August 24, 2020. Data were collected in one-week increments. Version 2 of the OCS started the week of September 8, 2020 with data collected in two-week increments. For additional information and estimates from the OCS, please see the interactive OCS Dashboard.↩︎