Using the precaution adoption process model to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine in England

被引:7
|
作者
Meyer, Carly [1 ,5 ]
Goffe, Louis [2 ]
Antonopoulou, Vivi [1 ]
Graham, Fiona [2 ]
Tang, Mei Yee [2 ]
Lecouturier, Jan [2 ]
Grimani, Aikaterini [3 ]
Chadwick, Paul [1 ]
Sniehotta, Falko F. [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] UCL, Dept Clin Educ & Hlth Psychol, NIHR Policy Res Unit Behav Sci, Hlth Psychol Res Grp, London, England
[2] Newcastle Univ, Populat Hlth Sci Inst, Fac Med Sci, NIHR Policy Res Unit Behav Sci, Newcastle upon Tyne, England
[3] Univ Warwick, Warwick Business Sch, NIHR Policy Res Unit Behav Sci, Behav Sci Grp, Coventry, England
[4] Heidelberg Univ, Ctr Prevent Med & Digital Hlth Baden Wuerttemberg, Dept Publ Hlth Prevent & Social Med, Heidelberg, Germany
[5] UCL, Ctr Behav Change, Dept Clin Educ & Hlth Psychol, 1-19 Torrington Pl, London WC1E 7HB, England
关键词
Coronavirus; Vaccine hesitancy; Booster vaccination; Precaution adoption process model; Health belief model; Theory of planned behaviour; UNITED-STATES; HESITANCY; ATTITUDES; INFLUENZA;
D O I
10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.047
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学]; Q939.91 [免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background: COVID-19 continues to pose a threat to public health. Booster vaccine programmes are crit-ical to maintain population-level immunity. Stage theory models of health behaviour can help our under-standing of vaccine decision-making in the context of perceived threats of COVID-19. Purpose: To use the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine (CBV) in England. Methods: An online, cross-sectional survey informed by the PAPM, the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model administered to people over the age of 50 residing in England, UK in October 2021. A multivariate, multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine associations with the different stages of CBV decision-making. Results: Of the total 2,004 participants: 135 (6.7%) were unengaged with the CBV programme; 262 (13.1%) were undecided as to whether to have a CBV; 31 (1.5%) had decided not to have a CBV; 1,415 (70.6%) had decided to have a CBV; and 161 (8.0%) had already had their CBV. Being unengaged was pos-itively associated with beliefs in their immune system to protect against COVID-19, being employed, and low household income; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, and higher academic qualifications. Being undecided was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system and having previously received the Oxford/AstraZeneca (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, positive attitudes regarding CBV, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, white British ethnicity, and living in East Midlands (vs London). Conclusions: Public health interventions promoting CBV may improve uptake through tailored messaging directed towards the specific decision stage relating to having a COVID-19 booster. (c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:2466 / 2475
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Understanding the Impact of (Anti-)Racism on Covid-19 Vaccine Allocation Decision-Making
    Webb, Sophie
    PARTECIPAZIONE E CONFLITTO, 2022, 15 (03) : 634 - 650
  • [22] COVID-19 Vaccine decision-making: trust among the transgender and disability communities in India
    D'souza, Sharin
    Ghatole, Bhakti
    Raghuram, Harikeerthan
    Parakh, Sana
    Tugnawat, Deepak
    Shaikh, Aqsa
    Singh, Satendra
    Bandewar, Sunita Sheel
    Bhan, Anant
    JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION IN HEALTHCARE, 2024, 17 (03) : 265 - 274
  • [23] Novel dynamic fuzzy Decision-Making framework for COVID-19 vaccine dose recipients
    Albahri, O. S.
    Zaidan, A. A.
    Albahri, A. S.
    Alsattar, H. A.
    Mohammed, Rawia
    Aickelin, Uwe
    Kou, Gang
    Jumaah, FM.
    Salih, Mahmood M.
    Alamoodi, A. H.
    Zaidan, B. B.
    Alazab, Mamoun
    Alnoor, Alhamzah
    Al-Obaidi, Jameel R.
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH, 2022, 37 : 147 - 168
  • [24] A Divergence-Based Medical Decision-Making Process of COVID-19 Diagnosis
    Farhadinia, Bahram
    MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS IN ENGINEERING, 2022, 2022
  • [25] Positive direct antiglobulin test in COVID-19 patients: Decision-making process
    Cabo, J.
    Brochier, A.
    Saussoy, P.
    Van Dievoet, M-A
    Capirchio, L.
    Delire, B.
    Deneys, V
    TRANSFUSION CLINIQUE ET BIOLOGIQUE, 2021, 28 (04) : 414 - 419
  • [26] COVID-19 Booster Vaccination Bellwethers: Factors Predictive of Older Adults' Adoption of the Second Booster COVID-19 Vaccine in Israel: A Longitudinal Study
    Ben-David, Boaz M. M.
    Keisari, Shoshi
    Regev, Tali
    Palgi, Yuval
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED GERONTOLOGY, 2023, 42 (05) : 1113 - 1117
  • [27] Organizational decision-making during COVID-19: A qualitative analysis of the organizational decision-making system in the United States during COVID-19
    Johnson, Karl
    Biddell, Caitlin B. B.
    Hecht, Hillary K. K.
    Lich, Kristen H. H.
    Swann, Julie
    Delamater, Paul
    Mayorga, Maria
    Ivy, Julie
    Smith, Raymond L. L.
    Patel, Mehul D. D.
    JOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT, 2023, 31 (02) : 259 - 272
  • [28] Rheumatic disease patient decision-making about COVID-19 vaccination: a qualitative analysis
    Yomei P. Shaw
    Sara Hustek
    Nina Nguyen
    Makenzie Starlin
    Kristin Wipfler
    Beth I. Wallace
    Kaleb Michaud
    BMC Rheumatology, 6
  • [29] Rheumatic disease patient decision-making about COVID-19 vaccination: a qualitative analysis
    Shaw, Yomei P.
    Hustek, Sara
    Nguyen, Nina
    Starlin, Makenzie
    Wipfler, Kristin
    Wallace, Beth I.
    Michaud, Kaleb
    BMC RHEUMATOLOGY, 2022, 6 (01)
  • [30] Face masks and COVID-19: a methodological debate about decision-making in public health
    Forastiere, Francesco
    Micheli, Andrea
    EPIDEMIOLOGIA & PREVENZIONE, 2020, 44 (5-6): : 322 - 324