Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33949038›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2022

Psychological, social, and situational factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination intentions: A study of UK key workers and non-key workers.

Sarah Butter, Emily McGlinchey, Emma Berry, Cherie Armour

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of health psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah ButterStress Trauma and Related Conditions (STARC) Research Lab, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9735-9156
Emily McGlincheyStress Trauma and Related Conditions (STARC) Research Lab, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Emma BerryCentre for Improving Health Related Quality of Life (CIHRQoL), School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Cherie ArmourStress Trauma and Related Conditions (STARC) Research Lab, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Queen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesVaccine hesitancy is a growing concern and threat to public health. This research will begin to examine the relative influence of relevant psychological, social, and situational factors on intent to engage with a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine among key workers and non-key workers.

designCross-sectional.

methodsThe study utilized a sample of UK adults who completed the 1-month follow-up of The COVID-19 Psychological Wellbeing Study during April/May 2020 and indicated having not been previously diagnosed with COVID-19 (key workers n = 584; not key workers n = 1,021). These groups were compared in relation to their intentions to vaccinate, perceived risk of infection, and symptom severity. Binary logistic regression was used to examine predictors of vaccine hesitancy.

resultsOverall, 74.2% of the sample (76.2% key workers, 73.1% non-key workers) indicated they would accept a COVID-19 vaccine in future. Key workers (in particular health and social care workers) had a higher perceived risk of becoming infected in the coming months. For key workers, being female and perceiving oneself as having relatively low infection risk in the next 6 months was associated with increased likelihood of vaccine hesitancy. For non-key workers, however, being aged 25-54, having a low or average income and not knowing someone diagnosed with COVID-19 were associated with hesitancy.

conclusionsThe proportion of individuals willing to accept a vaccine is encouraging but there is much room for improvement. Given the unique predictors of vaccine hesitancy in each group, public health campaigns may benefit from targeted messaging.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIntentionSARS-CoV-2United KingdomVaccinationVaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 VaccinescoronavirusCOVID-19health behaviourshesitancyperceived risksymptom severityvaccine

Identifiers

PMID33949038
PMCPMC8236922
OpenAlexW3159718857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.