Who got vaccinated against H1N1 pandemic influenza? – A longitudinal study in four US cities

The recent H1N1 pandemic influenza stimulated numerous studies into the attitudes and intentions about the H1N1 vaccine. However, no study has investigated prospective predictors of vaccination behaviour. We conducted a two-wave longitudinal study among residents in four US cities during the course of the H1N1 outbreak, using Internet surveys to assess demographic, cognitive and emotional predictors of H1N1 vaccination behaviour. Surveys were conducted at two time points, before (Time 1) and after (Time 2) the H1N1 vaccine was widely available to the public. Results show that Time 2 vaccination rates, but not Time 1 vaccination intentions, tracked H1N1 prevalence across the four cities. Receipt of seasonal influenza vaccine in the previous year, worry, compliance with recommended interventions, household size and education assessed at Time 1 were significant prospective predictors of vaccination behaviour. Perception of the H1N1 vaccine, social influence and prioritised vaccine recipient status assessed at Time 2 also predicted vaccination behaviour. Critically, worry about H1N1 mediated the effects of both objective risk (prevalence at the city level) and perceived risk on vaccination behaviour. These results suggest that H1N1 vaccination behaviour appropriately reflected objective risk across regions, and worry acted as the mechanism by which vaccination behaviour followed objective risk.     

A qualitative analysis of the vaccine intention–behaviour relationship: parents’ descriptions of their intentions,decision-making behaviour and planning processes towards HPV vaccination

Objective: The objective of this study is to identify factors influencing the vaccine intention–behaviour relationship. Design: A total of 445 parents who received a brief intervention to promote HPV vaccination were categorized based on their intentions post-intervention (yes/unsure/eventually/never) and subsequent adolescents’ vaccine status (yes/no). Fifty-one of these parents participated in qualitative interviews. Main Outcome Measures: Parents described their intentions, decision-making and planning processes towards vaccination. Framework analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Parents in the ‘Yes/Yes’ category were knowledgeable about HPV/vaccine, described strong, stable intentions, considered themselves the primary decision-makers about vaccination and said they vaccinated immediately. ‘Yes/No’ parents described strong intentions and thought their adolescent was vaccinated OR described hesitant intentions, seeking advice/agreement from others and noting barriers to vaccination without solutions. ‘Unsure/Yes’ parents described their intentions as strengthening with information from credible sources and identified strategies for overcoming barriers. ‘Unsure/No’ and ‘Eventually/No’ parents had misinformation/negative beliefs regarding vaccination, described being ambivalent or non-supportive of vaccination and cited barriers to vaccination. ‘Never/No’ parents held negative beliefs about vaccination, described strong, stable intentions to NOT vaccinate, deferring the decision to others, and reported no planning towards vaccination. Conclusions: Intention characteristics and planning processes could moderate the vaccine intention–behaviour relationship, potentially serving as targets for future vaccine strategies.     

Self-regulation and protective health behaviour: How regulatory focus and anticipated regret are related to vaccination decisions

Objective: We examined how individual motivational orientations and anticipated regret are related to the protective health decision of vaccination behaviour.

Design: The proposed relations were examined in a large-scale sample (N = 3168) and three medium-sized samples (N = 151, N = 194, N = 208). Questionnaires were applied to assess regulatory focus, anticipated regret and vaccination behaviour.

Results: Increased prevention-focused self-regulation – which is represented by concerns about security-related goals, responsibilities and obligations – was related to a greater likelihood of vaccination. Prevention-focused individuals’ higher likelihood of getting vaccinated seems at least in part to be a consequence of anticipated regret for not vaccinating. Study 3 suggests that regulatory focus is less related to vaccination decisions when regret is increased by the decision-making context; that is, when information highlighting vaccination effectiveness and a low likelihood of adverse responses is provided.

Conclusion: Prevention-focused self-regulation is related to a greater likelihood of engaging in health-protective behaviour. This can be explained by prevention-focused individuals’ greater tendency to anticipate regret about getting ill as a consequence of not adopting protective measures. If people perceive a protective measure such as a vaccination as highly effective, anticipated regret for not adopting it is generally increased, and individual differences in regulatory focus no longer predict the decision.     

Who do we trust? Differences in types of trust and beliefs in conspiracy theories between vaccinated and unvaccinated Europeans across 17 European countries

A plethora of research has highlighted that trust in science, political trust, and conspiracy theories are all important contributors to vaccine uptake behavior. In the current investigation, relying on data from 17 countries (N = 30,096) from the European Social Survey we examined how those who received (and wanted to receive the COVID-19 vaccine) compared to those who did not differ in their trust in: science, politicians and political parties, international organizations and towards people in general. We also examined whether they differed in how much they believed in conspiracy theories. Those who received (or wanted to receive) the COVID vaccine scored significantly higher in all forms of trust, and lower in conspiracy theory beliefs. A logistic regression suggested that trust in science, politicians, international organizations, as well as belief in conspiracy theories were significant predictors, even after accounting for key demographic characteristics.     

“I'll wait for the English one”: COVID-19 vaccine country of origin,national identity,and their effects on vaccine perceptions and uptake willingness

Vaccines can play a crucial role in reducing the negative outcomes of pandemics. In this paper we explore how vaccine perceptions and uptake willingness can be affected by vaccine-related information, the vaccine's country of origin, and national identity. Study 1 (N = 800) showed that a vaccine manufactured by China was perceived more negatively compared to vaccines from the UK, Germany, and Chile. Providing vaccine effectiveness information (83%) increased preference for waiting for an alternative vaccine and reduced perceived effectiveness of a vaccine from China. Brexit supporters perceived vaccines as less safe in general, and particularly thought of a vaccine from China as less competent, effective, and trustworthy, and were less prepared to have it. Study 2 (N = 601) largely replicated findings of Study 1 regarding the effects of a vaccine's country of origin. Moreover, participants who reported a higher sense of British superiority reported more negative attitudes towards a vaccine from China. However, apart from the aforementioned main effects of Study 2, our attempt to manipulate British identity vis a vis a Global identity in order to examine particular national-identity related outcomes was not successful. Overall, vaccine characteristics can interact with various social psychological factors, potentially affecting people's perceptions and willingness to uptake particular measures to support personal and public health.     

COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance: A Case of Interplay Between Political and Health Dimensions

Vaccines are essential for the eradication of diseases. Yet for many reasons, individuals do not embrace them completely. In the COVID-19 pandemic and with the possibility of the Brazilian population's immunization against the disease, both political and health-related dimensions might have had a role in individual COVID-19 vaccination acceptance. In two studies (n = 974), we tested the hypothesis that participants' vaccination acceptance is related to their past vote in the 2018 Brazilian presidential election (being or not being a Jair Bolsonaro voter) and their different levels of perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD). We further tested whether Bolsonaro's opposition or ambiguous messages towards vaccination (vs. control) increased vaccination rejection among those who have (vs. have not) voted for him and who are low (vs. high) in PVD. Results show that Bolsonaro (vs. non-Bolsonaro) voters accepted less vaccination, with higher rejection rates when participants expressed low (vs. high) PVD. Also, when primed either with Bolsonaro's opposed or ambiguous messages towards COVID-19 vaccination, such participants accepted less vaccines (vs. participants primed with neutral information). These findings are the first to show that the COVID-19 vaccine acceptance is related to their past vote and leadership influence but also different levels of perceived vulnerability to disease.     

“泗县甲肝疫苗事件”的启示

安徽省泗县甲肝疫苗事件是一起罕见的群体性心因反应,造成了巨大的经济损失和不良的社会影响。通过分析这次事件的发生起因、进展过程和处理结果,我们认识到目前卫生技术人员和政府部门在应对突发性公共卫生事件上存在能力缺乏和经验不足,这给我们在认识事物、分析问题和科学决策上带来了深刻的启示。     

When views about alternative medicine,nature and god come in the way of people's vaccination intentions

In spite of the safety and efficiency of the COVID-19 vaccines and the many promotion efforts of political and expert authorities, a fair portion of the population remained hesitant if not opposed to vaccination. Public debate and the available literature point to the possible role of people's attitudes towards medical institutions as well as their preference for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) on their motivations and intentions to be vaccinated. Other potential ideological factors are beliefs about environmental laissez-faire and divine providence insofar as they encourage people to let the pandemic unfold without human interference. In three cross-sectional samples (total N = 8214), collected at successive moments during the Belgian vaccination campaign, the present research examines the distal role of these psychological and ideological factors on vaccination intentions via motivational processes. Study 1 gauges the relation between trust in medical institutions and preference for CAM on intentions to get vaccinated via motivations. Study 2 examined the role of beliefs in the desirability of letting nature take its course (‘environmental laissez-faire beliefs’) on vaccination intention via motivations. Study 3 tests whether people's adherence to environmental laissez-faire and beliefs about divine providence are linked to their motivations for vaccination via trust in the medical institutions and CAM. Results show that adherence to CAM has a deleterious effect on vaccination intentions, whereas trust in medical institutions has a positive effect. Both ideological factors pertaining to external control are only moderately related, with environmental laissez-faire beliefs having stronger effects on CAM, medical trust and vaccination motivations. We discuss the importance of this set of results in light of the growing interest in CAM and the increasing presence of messages appealing to the environment.