Portrait of French-speaking minorities with respect to vaccination against COVID-19
Chloé Desjardins, Jennifer Lacroix Haraysm, Joseph Abdoulnour, Manon Denis-LeBlanc, Daniel Hubert, Salomon Fotsing, Diane Bouchard Lamothe, Sylvain Boet

TL;DR
This study compares the vaccination attitudes and behaviors of French-speaking minorities and English-speaking majorities in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Contribution
The study provides a descriptive portrait of French-speaking minorities' health needs and vaccine perceptions during the pandemic.
Findings
French-speaking minorities were less likely to vaccinate children compared to English speakers.
A higher proportion of French-speaking minorities got vaccinated for a vaccine passport.
Unvaccinated French-speaking minorities were more likely to doubt vaccine efficacy.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign highlighted the requirement to better understand the needs of different populations. French-speaking minorities (FSMs) have greater difficulty accessing quality care in French, and this problem was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this survey was to develop a descriptive portrait of the health needs of FSMs in relation to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign by describing their vaccination status, attitudes and beliefs compared with English-speaking majorities. A survey was conducted among eligible participants using convenience sampling. Data measurement includes a descriptive statistical comparison using analysis of the variance, univariate logistic regressions and a two-proportions z-test. Of the 1,505 respondents (554 FSMs vs. 951 English speakers), the FSMs have an average age of 51.4 years and 89.2%…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
| Characteristics | % FSM | % English speakers |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Mean; standard deviation | 51.4; 16.9 | 48.1; 17.4 |
| Median | 53.0 | 47.0 |
| 18–24 | 4.7 | 11.1 |
| 25–34 | 17.0 | 15.3 |
| 35–44 | 14.6 | 17.0 |
| 45–54 | 17.5 | 20.1 |
| 55–64 | 20.9 | 17.5 |
| 65–74 | 17.5 | 9.3 |
| ≥75 | 7.8 | 9.6 |
|
| ||
| Female | 61.2 | 50.2 |
| Male | 38.8 | 49.8 |
| Other | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Prefer not to answer | 0.0 | 0.0 |
|
| ||
| Ontario | 47.1 | 50.4 |
| New Brunswick | 33.4 | 2.4 |
| British Columbia | 6.5 | 17.8 |
| Alberta | 6.5 | 14.2 |
| Manitoba | 2.7 | 4.9 |
| Saskatchewan | 1.4 | 4.1 |
| Nova Scotia | 1.4 | 3.7 |
| Nunavut | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Newfoundland and Labrador | 0.2 | 2.1 |
| Prince Edward Island | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| Yukon | 0.2 | 0.0 |
|
| ||
| ≤$30,000 | 12.4 | 13.2 |
| $30,000 to $60,000 | 23.4 | 23.6 |
| $60,000 to $90,000 | 20.7 | 22.0 |
| $90,000 to $120,000 | 17.4 | 17.9 |
| $120,000 to $150,000 | 11.3 | 9.8 |
| >$150,000 | 14.8 | 13.5 |
|
| ||
| Less than a high school diploma or equivalent | 3.1 | 1.2 |
| High school diploma or certificate of equivalence | 15.6 | 18.2 |
| Trade certificate or diploma | 5.6 | 6.9 |
| College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma | 20.0 | 22.4 |
| University certificate or diploma below bachelor level | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 30.0 | 30.5 |
| University certificate, diploma or degree above bachelor level | 20.5 | 14.0 |
|
| ||
| Single | 23.4 | 24.1 |
| Couple | 49.5 | 34.9 |
| Family | 27.2 | 40.9 |
|
| ||
| North American First Nation | 1.3 | 2.1 |
| Métis | 2.5 | 2.0 |
| Inuk (Inuit) | 0.0 | 0.3 |
|
| ||
| Arab | 0.9 | 1.4 |
| Southeast Asian | 1.6 | 0.5 |
| West Asian | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| Caucasian | 70.8 | 91.5 |
| Chinese | 8.8 | 1.3 |
| Korean | 0.6 | 0.0 |
| Japanese | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| Latin American | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| African American | 1.8 | 2.5 |
| Filipino | 1.3 | 0.0 |
| South Asian | 6.6 | 0.5 |
| Other | 4.7 | 1.6 |
|
| ||
| Canadian citizen by birth | 89.2 | 77.2 |
| Canadian citizen by naturalization | 7.6 | 18.6 |
| Permanent resident | 2.5 | 2.7 |
| None | 0.7 | 1.5 |
|
| ||
| Obesity | 9.4 | 9.2 |
| Heart and/or vessel disease | 4.7 | 4.7 |
| Diabetes | 10.1 | 6.3 |
| Liver disease | 0.7 | 0.4 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 0.0 | 0.7 |
| Alzheimer’s disease | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| Immunodeficiency | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Lung disease | 7.2 | 6.7 |
| None of these health problems | 64.3 | 68.7 |
| Vaccination status | % FSM | % English speakers | Likelihood chi-squared | Approx. sig. (bilateral)a | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Yes | 93.60 | 91.80 | 1.763 | 0.184 | 0.756 | 0.500 | 1.144 |
| No | 6.40 | 8.20 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| 1 dose | 0.80 | 1.30 | 5.758 | 0.124 | 0.472 | 0.144 | 1.549 |
| 2 doses | 19.50 | 23.50 | 0.640 | 0.429 | 0.953 | ||
| 3 doses | 66.70 | 65.20 | 0.790 | 0.559 | 1.116 | ||
| 4 doses | 13.00 | 10.10 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Very likely | 62.20 | 62.60 | 2.463 | 0.482 | 0.881 | 0.559 | 1.390 |
| Somewhat likely | 20.10 | 22.50 | 0.792 | 0.483 | 1.300 | ||
| Unlikely | 11.10 | 9.10 | 1.082 | 0.623 | 1.879 | ||
| Very unlikely | 6.60 | 5.90 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Very likely | 2.90 | 6.40 | 4.523 | 0.210 | 0.354 | 0.039 | 3.194 |
| Somewhat likely | 5.70 | 17.90 | 0.253 | 0.053 | 1.200 | ||
| Unlikely | 17.10 | 16.70 | 0.817 | 0.277 | 2.405 | ||
| Very unlikely | 74.30 | 59.00 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Yes | 74.20 | 86.30 | 7.069 | 0.008 | 0.455 | 0.259 | 0.799 |
| No | 25.80 | 13.70 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Yes | 58.60 | 73.90 | 7.531 | 0.006 | 0.500 | 0.306 | 0.815 |
| No | 41.40 | 26.10 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| 1 dose | 29.20 | 17.20 | 3.382 | 0.184 | 2.064 | 0.784 | 5.433 |
| 2 doses | 54.20 | 62.60 | 1.053 | 0.446 | 2.486 | ||
| 3 doses | 16.70 | 20.30 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Very likely | 0.0 | 22.0 | 16.879 | 0.001 | 6.84E-10 | 6.84E-10 | 6.84E-10 |
| Somewhat likely | 28.6 | 34.10 | 0.473 | 0.180 | 1.247 | ||
| Unlikely | 28.6 | 19.8 | 0.815 | 0.296 | 2.246 | ||
| Very unlikely | 42.9 | 24.2 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
| Vaccination attitudes | FSMs | English speakers | Statistical z-testa | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |||
|
| ||||||
| Vaccination is mandated by my workplace | 112 | 21.7% | 163 | 18.8% | −1.34 | 0.1811 |
| Vaccination passport | 201 | 39.0% | 254 | 29.3% | −3.72 | 0.0002 |
| I want to protect myself against serious illness | 395 | 76.7% | 686 | 79.0% | −1.02 | 0.3099 |
| Return to normal life | 275 | 53.4% | 433 | 49.9% | −1.26 | 0.2064 |
| I want to protect others | 329 | 63.9% | 574 | 66.1% | −0.85 | 0.3964 |
| Leisure | 179 | 34.8% | 288 | 33.2% | −0.60 | 0.5487 |
| Other | 14 | 2.7% | 22 | 2.5% | −0.21 | 0.8355 |
|
| ||||||
| The vaccine is not recommended for me | 5 | 14.3% | 7 | 9.1% | −0.83 | 0.4088 |
| I do not have the necessary information to make a decision | 4 | 11.4% | 8 | 10.4% | −0.17 | 0.8688 |
| I know too many people who have had side effects | 12 | 34.3% | 32 | 41.6% | −0.73 | 0.4642 |
| I’m afraid | 5 | 14.3% | 9 | 11.7% | −0.39 | 0.6994 |
| I am not at a great risk of contracting COVID-19 | 9 | 25.7% | 17 | 22.1% | −0.42 | 0.6720 |
| If I get COVID-19, I won’t be very sick | 6 | 17.1% | 17 | 22.1% | 0.60 | 1.4517 |
| We do not know the long-term side effects | 22 | 62.9% | 44 | 57.1% | −0.57 | 0.5681 |
| I don’t know who to believe | 3 | 8.6% | 8 | 10.4% | −0.30 | 0.7640 |
| I don’t know how, when or where to get vaccinated | 0d | 0.0% | 1 | 1.3% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
| I should be given a choice | 18 | 51.4% | 36 | 46.8% | −0.46 | 0.6456 |
| There was a problem with the appointment | 0d | 0.0% | 2 | 2.6% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
| I didn’t have time | 0d | 0.0% | 4 | 5.2% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
| I’ve already had COVID-19 | 3 | 8.6% | 15 | 19.5% | −1.46 | 0.1446 |
| I don’t want to get vaccinated at this time | 14 | 40.0% | 25 | 32.5% | −0.78 | 0.4370 |
| In general, I don’t believe in vaccines | 4 | 11.4% | 10 | 13.0% | −0.23 | 0.8169 |
| The vaccine I want is not available or has not been offered to me | 0d | 0.0% | 2 | 2.6% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
| I don’t trust the vaccine offered to me | 10 | 28.6% | 20 | 26.0% | −0.29 | 0.7731 |
| I don’t trust the health system | 5 | 14.3% | 10 | 13.0% | −0.19 | 0.8513 |
| Cultural, philosophical or religious reasons | 5 | 14.3% | 7 | 9.1% | −0.83 | 0.4088 |
| I’m pregnant or plan to become pregnant | 1 | 2.9% | 3 | 3.9% | −0.28 | 0.7833 |
| I’m not sure that vaccines against COVID-19 are effective | 21 | 60.0% | 28 | 36.4% | −2.34 | 0.0194 |
| Other | 1 | 2.9% | 10 | 13.0% | −1.67 | 0.0947 |
|
| ||||||
| The vaccine is not recommended for them | 7 | 20.0% | 29 | 32.2% | −1.35 | 0.1754 |
| I do not have the necessary information to make a decision | 8 | 22.9% | 11 | 12.2% | −1.49 | 0.1370 |
| I know too many people who have had side effects | 5 | 14.3% | 14 | 15.6% | −0.18 | 0.8591 |
| I’m afraid and/or my children are afraid | 2 | 5.7% | 6 | 6.7% | −0.20 | 0.8451 |
| My children are not at high risk of contracting COVID-19 | 4 | 11.4% | 11 | 12.2% | −0.12 | 0.9024 |
| If they contract COVID-19, my children won’t be very sick | 8 | 22.9% | 10 | 11.1% | −1.68 | 0.0931 |
| We do not know the long-term side effects of the vaccine that was offered to me for them | 11 | 31.4% | 27 | 30.0% | −0.16 | 0.8761 |
| I don’t know who to believe | 3 | 8.6% | 3 | 3.3% | −1.23 | 0.2187 |
| I don’t know how, when or where to get my children vaccinated | 0d | 0.0% | 1 | 1.1% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
| I should be given a choice | 8 | 22.9% | 16 | 17.8% | −0.65 | 0.5174 |
| There was a problem with the appointment | 1 | 2.9% | 2 | 2.2% | −0.21 | 0.8350 |
| I didn’t have time | 2 | 5.7% | 2 | 2.2% | −1.00 | 0.3192 |
| They’ve already had COVID-19 | 6 | 17.1% | 10 | 11.1% | −0.91 | 0.3648 |
| I don’t want my children to get vaccinated at this time | 5 | 14.3% | 19 | 21.1% | −0.87 | 0.3844 |
| In general, I don’t believe in vaccines | 0d | 0.0% | 6 | 6.7% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
| The vaccine I want for my children is not available or has not been offered to me | 1 | 2.9% | 3 | 3.3% | −0.14 | 0.8920 |
| I don’t trust the vaccine offered to me | 4 | 11.4% | 10 | 11.1% | −0.05 | 0.9597 |
| I don’t trust the health system because of a bad experience | 3 | 8.6% | 5 | 5.6% | −0.62 | 0.5362 |
| Cultural, philosophical or religious reasons | 0d | 0.0% | 3 | 3.3% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
| I’m not sure that vaccines against COVID-19 are effective | 5 | 14.3% | 21 | 23.3% | −1.12 | 0.2631 |
| In general, the risks associated with vaccines are greater than the benefits | 6 | 17.1% | 15 | 16.7% | −0.06 | 0.9490 |
| Other | 0d | 0.0% | 4 | 4.4% | N/Ad | N/Ad |
|
| ||||||
| Friends, family members or acquaintances | 51 | 9.3% | 132 | 13.9% | −2.64 | 0.008 |
| My physician | 379 | 69.0% | 657 | 69.4% | −0.14 | 0.890 |
| My pharmacist | 238 | 43.4% | 380 | 40.1% | −1.23 | 0.220 |
| Other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses) | 228 | 41.5% | 439 | 46.4% | −1.82 | 0.069 |
| Community leaders | 17 | 3.1% | 35 | 3.7% | −0.61 | 0.540 |
| Politicians | 24 | 4.4% | 18 | 1.9% | −2.80 | 0.005 |
| Social media | 23 | 4.2% | 26 | 2.7% | −1.52 | 0.129 |
| Alternative medicine professionals | 32 | 5.8% | 48 | 5.1% | −0.63 | 0.527 |
| Public health authorities | 335 | 61.0% | 529 | 55.9% | −1.95 | 0.051 |
| Health scientists and researchers | 352 | 64.1% | 593 | 62.6% | −0.58 | 0.561 |
| World Health Organization (WHO) | 267 | 48.6% | 437 | 46.1% | −0.93 | 0.351 |
| Pharmaceutical companies | 24 | 4.4% | 70 | 7.4% | −2.34 | 0.020 |
| Other | 29 | 5.3% | 59 | 6.2% | −0.75 | 0.451 |
|
| ||||||
| Confirm with other sources | 338 | 61.6% | 558 | 59.1% | −0.94 | 0.3481 |
| Click on the link to read the full article | 230 | 41.9% | 461 | 48.8% | −2.59 | 0.0095 |
| Check the date of the information | 204 | 37.2% | 354 | 37.5% | −0.13 | 0.8949 |
| Check the number of likes or shares | 6 | 1.1% | 29 | 3.1% | −2.47 | 0.0134 |
| Research the author or source | 242 | 44.1% | 407 | 43.1% | −0.36 | 0.7154 |
| Read the comments or take note of the discussions on the subject | 93 | 16.9% | 164 | 17.4% | −0.21 | 0.8300 |
| Consult friends and family | 59 | 10.7% | 142 | 15.0% | −2.33 | 0.0196 |
| Check the credibility of the URL | 203 | 37.0% | 339 | 35.9% | −0.41 | 0.6785 |
| Other | 60 | 10.9% | 86 | 9.1% | 1.15 | 1.7482 |
| Vaccination beliefs | % FSM | % English speakers | Likelihood chi-squared | Approx. sig. (bilateral) | OR | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 52.00 | 51.40 | 5.561 | 0.135 | 3.009 | 1.023 | 8.854 |
| Agree | 40.60 | 39.70 | 2.971 | 1.114 | 7.923 | ||
| Disagree | 4.90 | 5.60 | 1.876 | 0.692 | 5.084 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 2.50 | 3.30 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 49.30 | 48.50 | 6.656 | 0.084 | 0.290 | 0.089 | 0.943 |
| Agree | 36.70 | 36.90 | 0.258 | 0.090 | 0.743 | ||
| Disagree | 8.00 | 9.00 | 0.342 | 0.134 | 0.875 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 6.00 | 5.70 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 10.30 | 9.60 | 1.981 | 0.576 | 0.692 | 0.366 | 1.310 |
| Agree | 15.90 | 16.40 | 0.763 | 0.468 | 1.245 | ||
| Disagree | 39.80 | 38.60 | 0.816 | 0.588 | 1.134 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 34.00 | 35.40 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 52.60 | 50.30 | 3.161 | 0.367 | 1.614 | 0.622 | 4.188 |
| Agree | 35.60 | 36.70 | 1.251 | 0.501 | 3.124 | ||
| Disagree | 7.10 | 7.40 | 1.556 | 0.642 | 3.772 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 4.70 | 5.60 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 58.00 | 56.10 | 3.332 | 0.343 | 0.734 | 0.295 | 1.828 |
| Agree | 34.60 | 35.60 | 0.616 | 0.250 | 1.514 | ||
| Disagree | 4.50 | 6.20 | 0.517 | 0.197 | 1.353 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 2.90 | 2.10 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 13.60 | 11.60 | 1.311 | 0.727 | 0.853 | 0.537 | 1.356 |
| Agree | 28.50 | 29.50 | 0.795 | 0.529 | 1.196 | ||
| Disagree | 43.20 | 43.30 | 0.896 | 0.625 | 1.284 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 14.70 | 15.70 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 6.90 | 6.00 | 3.537 | 0.316 | 0.822 | 0.469 | 1.443 |
| Agree | 12.90 | 12.20 | 1.012 | 0.613 | 1.670 | ||
| Disagree | 36.70 | 35.40 | 0.771 | 0.550 | 1.080 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 43.60 | 46.40 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 57.50 | 56.10 | 3.842 | 0.279 | 1.862 | 0.817 | 4.244 |
| Agree | 30.50 | 29.20 | 1.564 | 0.701 | 3.490 | ||
| Disagree | 6.50 | 8.60 | 1.032 | 0.464 | 2.297 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 5.50 | 6.00 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 9.40 | 7.10 | 48.820 | 0.000 | 5.716 | 2.997 | 10.901 |
| Agree | 15.60 | 14.70 | 3.693 | 2.207 | 6.181 | ||
| Disagree | 40.60 | 29.30 | 2.918 | 2.060 | 4.134 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 34.40 | 48.90 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
|
| |||||||
| Strongly agree | 5.60 | 6.50 | 13.088 | 0.004 | 0.522 | 0.253 | 1.077 |
| Agree | 12.00 | 12.80 | 0.961 | 0.560 | 1.647 | ||
| Disagree | 49.00 | 39.00 | 1.489 | 1.079 | 2.055 | ||
| Strongly disagree | 33.40 | 41.70 | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Introduction
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign highlighted the requirement to better understand the needs of different Canadian populations during a pandemic. The lack of data on the needs of linguistic minorities ((1–3)) had a significant impact on vaccine uptake and trust in healthcare institutions ((4,5)).
French-speaking minorities (FSMs) have greater difficulty accessing quality care in French ((6–12)), which is one of the problems exacerbated during a pandemic ((8,12,13)). However, vaccine uptake is influenced by multiple factors linked to the sociocultural context, including values, morality, accessibility and therapeutic experience, requiring adapted medical practices ((14–17)). This study is necessary to fill the knowledge gap on the subject and improve the active offer.
Given the fragmented nature of Canadian Francophonie ((18)), it is difficult to establish an overall picture of the needs of FSMs based on up-to-date evidence. An existing survey ((19)) explores some relevant areas, but does not provide a breakdown by language, at least not in publicly available data. This survey, carried out between May 1 and June 30, 2022, aims to describe the health needs of FSMs in relation to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign through the lens of vaccination status, attitudes and beliefs, and provides for a comparison with English-speaking majorities.
Methods
This article was written according to the guidelines of Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) ((20)).
Population, time and place
The survey was conducted over an eight-week period ending on June 30, 2022, among FSMs and English speakers outside Québec, Canada. The study defines FSMs as residents outside Québec whose preferred language is French, and Anglophones as residents outside Québec whose preferred language is English. Given the rapid evolution of the pandemic, convenience sampling was used.
Link to the research objective
The descriptive portrait of FSMs vis-à-vis the COVID-19 vaccination campaign includes the collection of sociodemographic data, vaccination status, attitudes and beliefs.
Development of the survey questionnaire
The questionnaire (Supplemental material, Survey) was designed by the research team based on a validated survey ((19)) by Statistics Canada. To meet the requirements of the study, questions dealing with language, attitudes and beliefs were added before conducting a pilot study with 30 participants drawn from the mailing list of Léger Marketing Inc.
Sampling technique
Participants were recruited primarily via the sampling strategy, the mailing list of Léger Marketing Inc. and Canadian Francophone organizations (Supplemental material, Survey invitation letter). The sample was created taking into account the response rates for each age category and the quotas required to obtain a representative sample. Representative quotas were established for age, gender and province. The sample was sent out strategically to ensure representativeness. For example, attention was focused on the 18 to 24 age group, as these respondents are generally harder to reach, while less attention was paid to the 65+ age group, as they are conversely much easier to reach. This required constant attention to the quotas defined in the survey platform, while ensuring random selection. An invitation letter, a consent form and the questionnaire were distributed to those who met the inclusion criteria.
Informed consent
The study was approved by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (H-02-22-7648). A consent form had to be completed by participants prior to conducting the survey.
Optimizing response rates
The survey was made available on FocusVision Decipher (Forsta, 2022) and on the LEO mobile app (Léger Marketing Inc., 2020), in addition to being widely distributed via the social networks of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine’s Francophone Affairs. Participants were invited to share the survey, allowing snowball sampling to be used to optimize the response rate.
Measurement
Data measurement was carried out in accordance with two research questions designed to identify 1) the vaccination status, attitudes and beliefs of FSMs compared with English speakers, and 2) the sociodemographic characteristics of FSMs in relation to vaccination status, attitudes and beliefs.
Sociodemographic data includes: province/territory of residence, age, gender, income, education, marital status, ethnicity, citizenship and health status. Vaccination status includes COVID-19 vaccine doses, willingness to follow the recommended vaccine regimen, and vaccination of children (ages 5 to 11 years). Attitudes include reasons for uptake and hesitancy, as well as trusted sources of information. Beliefs include vaccine safety, perceived risks and efficacy, health practices and social responsibility.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated and analyzed using SPSS (version 22.0). Continuous variables were presented as means and standard deviations, and categorical variables as totals and/or percentages. Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed to examine significant differences in continuous variables. Univariate logistic regressions were performed to determine the associations between FSMs and English speakers, and also sociodemographic variables with vaccination status and belief. The findings are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as the likelihood chi-squared statistic. A two-proportions z-test was performed for multiple-response questions to compare proportions between groups; the Bonferroni correction was used for multiple comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference.
Findings
The sample comprised 1,505 participants: 554 FSMs and 951 English speakers. The findings include a 100% response rate for each participant, giving n=554 (FSMs) and n=951 (English speakers). The sociodemographic data are presented below (Table 1).
Vaccination status
Differences between French-speaking minorities and English speakers
According to the univariate regression values, FSMs were less willing to have their children vaccinated against preventable diseases (74.2% vs. 86.3%) (χ^2^[1, N=440]=7.069, p=0.008; OR=0.455 [95% CI: 0.259–0.799]), against COVID-19 (58.6% vs. 73.9%) (χ^2^[1, N=436]=7.531, p=0.006; OR=0.500 [95% CI: 0.306–0.815]) or to follow the recommended vaccine regimen (0.0% vs. 22.0%) (χ^2^[3, N=126]=16.879, p=0.001) (Table 2).
Differences according to sociodemographic data
Compared with those born outside the country, Canadian-born FSMs are more inclined to not follow the recommended vaccine regimen (85.2% vs. 37.5%) (χ^2^[3, N=35]=10.714, p=0.013; OR=7.667 [95% CI: 1.035–56.770]), but have more doses (67.7% and 13.6% vs. 56.9% and 7.8%) (χ^2^[3, N=513]=9.848, p=0.020; OR=15.750 [95% CI: 1.736–142.882]). Among those, individuals with a college/certificate education are less inclined to agree with the vaccine regimen compared with those with a higher education (52.7% vs. 75.7%) (χ^2^[9, N=509]=22.968, p=0.006; OR=0.313 [95% CI: 0.109–0.903]). More FSMs are vaccinated in Ontario (96.2% vs. 86.2% [West] and 93.8% [Atlantic]) (χ^2^[2, N=547]=10.317, p=0.017; OR=4.012 [95% CI: 1.695–9.497]) receive more doses compared with other regions (20% vs. 8.6% [West] and 5.6% [Atlantic]) (χ^2^[6, N=511]=43.713, p<0.001). Men (18.9% vs. 9.3%, women) (χ^2^[3, N=514]=14.229, p=0.003; OR=2.044 [95% CI: 1.203–3.471]) and older individuals (52.2 ± 16.1 and 68.8 ± 11.2 years vs. 40.8 ± 18.3 and 40.9 ± 12.2 years; F(3, 510)=46.58, p<0.001) more often had 3–4 doses. Among FSMs with vaccinated children, a high income was preponderant (87% [>60,000 to 60,000]) (χ^2^[2, N=86]=14.963, p=0.001; OR=12.593 [95% CI: 2.931–54.107]).
Attitudes
Differences between French-speaking minorities and English speakers
There are two significant differences: a greater proportion of FSMs had gotten vaccinated to obtain the vaccine passport (39% vs. 29.3%, p<0.001); among the unvaccinated, more FSMs questioned the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine (60.0% vs. 36.4%, p=0.019) (Table 3).
Differences according to sociodemographic data
French-speaking minorities who are Canadian citizens by birth are mainly vaccinated for a return to normal life (55% vs. 39%, p=0.034) and protection against serious illness (79% vs. 59%, p=0.002). To obtain information on COVID-19, they mainly consulted family and friends (10% vs. 20%, p=0.015), pharmacists (45% vs. 30%, p=0.026) and public health authorities (63% vs. 47%, p=0.016). Ontarians are more confident in the safety and efficacy of vaccines/health measures (58.1% vs. 38.9% [West] and 42.7% [Atlantic]) (χ^2^[6, N=545]=19.141, p=0.004; OR=1.829 [95% CI: 0.786–4.255]). This confidence is also preponderant among men (58.4% vs. 43.4%, women) (χ^2^[3, N=548]=12.337, p=0.006; OR=1.724 [95% CI: 0.804–3.695]) who are more willing to get vaccinated to protect themselves against serious illness (83% vs. 72.6%, p<0.001). The higher the level of education, the more likely it was that article publication dates would be consulted to validate information (40% vs. 24%, p=0.008) and that scientific professionals would be regarded with confidence (76% vs. 56%, p<0.001).
Beliefs
Differences between French-speaking minorities and English speakers
FSMs frequently disagreed with the efficacy of herd immunity (Table 4).
Differences according to sociodemographic data
French-speaking minorities with high incomes, >120,000] vs. 32.2% [120,000] and 25.0% [<60,000]) (χ^2^[6, N=546]=33.064, *p*<0.001; OR=6.381 [95% CI: 2.454–16.592]), did not believe in the stand-alone efficacy of physical distancing (21.7% [>120,000] vs. 12.5% [120,000] vs. 11.9% [<60,000]) (χ^2^[6, N=544]=15.805, *p*=0.015; OR=3.836 [95% CI: 1.671–8.805]), or herd immunity (46.8% [>120,000] vs. 30.8% [120,000] vs. 29.1% [<60,000]) (χ^2^[6, N=545]=20.787, *p*=0.002; OR=5.789 [95% CI: 2.080–16.112]) and that a previous diagnosis would result in less serious illness (42.6% [>120,000] vs. 30.9% [120,000] vs. 29.1% [<$60,000]) (χ^2^[6, N=544]=15.185, p=0.019; OR=5.965 [95% CI: 1,659–21,449]).
Discussion
Summary of key findings
The survey highlights three findings of interest: a polarization of attitudes/beliefs according to citizenship and education, vaccine uptake for a return to normal, and significant hesitancy concerning vaccination of children.
Comparative analysis
Compared with English speakers, FSMs show a polarization of attitudes/beliefs according to certain sociodemographic characteristics. Among FSMs, Canadian-born citizens with a higher education were more likely to completely disagree or agree with the recommended vaccine regimen. This trend is noted by other studies in high-income countries ((17)). The literature indicates that mixed attitudes may stem from inconsistent information from official sources ((21–24)), becoming a risk to communication and patient disregard for medical care ((25)).
According to the literature, the prospect of a “return to normal” is strong motivation for vaccine uptake ((4,21)). Although FSMs generally doubted its efficacy, they mainly got vaccinated to obtain the vaccine passport and to protect themselves against serious illness, especially in the case of men. Given the inconsistency of information, also felt among healthcare professionals ((25)), FSMs were not always able to count on the news and relied on the recommendations of government agencies, promising a return to normality thanks to vaccination ((24,26)).
Although FSMs are often described as an older population ((7,27)), this survey was designed to be representative of all FSM generations. Despite the low representation of French-speaking parents with young children, vaccination hesitancy for children is of particular interest. Vaccine hesitancy (COVID-19 and other diseases) for children is more pronounced among FSMs, who are less likely to follow the vaccine regimen, unless they have a high income. In a broader context, the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in children has been widely disputed in literature ((17,28)).
The problem of childhood vaccination, which existed prior to the emergence of COVID-19 ((17)) and led to parental vaccine hesitancy during this pandemic ((28)), could be caused by sub-optimal physician-patient communication ((4,29)). The finding of this study could indicate greater inaccessibility for linguistic minorities. We hypothesize that the current shortage of family physicians in rural and urban settings ((30,31)), and by extension a lack of accessibility to bilingual health professionals, could contribute to an exacerbation of the problem of vaccination of children during a health crisis. Vaccination of children and parental hesitancy should be the subject of further research to pursue this line of thought and optimize access to care.
Strengths and weaknesses
Considering the rapid evolution of the virus and of health recommendations, the study has some conceptual and methodological limitations. Media saturation and collective exhaustion made participation less appealing and influenced the sampling technique that was selected, resulting in a sampling bias caused by a convenience sample. Despite the strategy employed by Léger Marketing Inc., it is difficult to ensure the representativeness of FSMs and English speakers, as well as the potential for statistical generalization of the findings. Furthermore, the survey presents a portrait of FSMs for a given period, rather than according to a specific situation during the pandemic. The time elapsed between the data collection period and the comparative analysis must also be considered a bias for the representativeness of the findings. Despite this, the study met its objective and thus contributed to the active offering of French-language health services.
Impact
This survey provides health professionals with the relevant information they need to tailor their communication with patients who are faced with a vaccination choice. The findings also point to the need for new studies establishing a portrait of FSMs in order to better address their vaccine needs.
Next steps
By filling the knowledge gap regarding vaccination against COVID-19, this data could help improve access to information and, consequently, help adapt the training of health professionals for a therapeutic alliance based on trust.
Conclusion
Although difficult to generalize, this survey did reveal significant differences between FSMs and English speakers in their perceptions of vaccine efficacy, particularly vaccination of children, as well as a polarization of the attitudes/beliefs of FSMs according to certain sociodemographic factors. The findings imply a requirement to better understand the overall needs of FSMs in order to improve access to information and care in French.
Supplemental material
These documents can be accessed on the Supplemental material fileSurvey, data collection toolSurvey invitation letter and distribution list
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Getachew Y, Zephyrin L, Abrams MK, Shah A, Lewis C. M. Doty M. Beyond the Case Count: Wide-Ranging Disparities COVID-19 in U.S. | Commonwealth Fund. Published 2020. [Accessed 2022 Feb 18]. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/2020/sep/beyond-case-count-disparities-covid-19-united-states
- 2Cascini F, Pantovic A, Al-Ajlouni Y, Failla G, Ricciardi W. Attitudes, acceptance and hesitancy among the general population worldwide to receive the COVID-19 vaccines and their contributing factors: A systematic review. E Clinical Medicine 2021;40:101113. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.10111334490416 PMC 8411034 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Tang X, Gelband H, Nagelkerke N, Bogoch II, Brown P, Morawski E, Lam T, Jha P; Action to beat coronavirus/Action pour battre le coronavirus (Ab-C) Study Investigators. COVID-19 vaccination intention during early vaccine rollout in Canada: a nationwide online survey. Lancet Reg Health Am 2021;2:100055. 10.1016/j.lana.2021.10005534467260 PMC 8390972 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Dubé E, Laberge C, Guay M, Bramadat P, Roy R, Bettinger J. Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2013;9(8):1763–73. 10.4161/hv.2465723584253 PMC 3906279 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Dubé E, Gagnon D, Mac Donald N. Between persuasion and compulsion: the case of COVID-19 vaccination in Canada. Vaccine 2022;40(29):3923–6. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.05335637068 PMC 9134169 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 6Bouchard L, Desmeules M. [Linguistic minorities in Canada and health]. Healthc Policy 2013;9(Spec Issue):38–47. 10.12927/hcpol.2013.2358924289938 PMC 4750144 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 7Drolet M, Bouchard P, Savard J. Accessibilité et Offre Active: Santé et Services Sociaux En Contexte Linguistique Minoritaire.; 2017. [Accessed 2021 Aug 31]. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/36889
- 8Bowen S. The Impact of Language Barriers On Patient Safety and Quality of Care Final Report. Société Santé en français. 2015. https://www.santefrancais.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SSF-Bowen-S.-Language-Barriers-Study-1.pdf
