Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34826039›Full record

ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022

Segmentation of intentions towards COVID-19 vaccine acceptance through political and health behaviour explanatory models.

Claire Rountree, Garry Prentice

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Frontiers in public health · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Claire RountreeInteractions Research Ltd, Greystones, Wicklow, Ireland. claire@interactions.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3421-1474
Garry PrenticePsychology Department, Dublin Business School, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManagement of the COVID-19 pandemic has been plagued by an online 'infodemic', not least on the topic of vaccine safety. Failure to vaccinate is often addressed with corrective, factually based information. However, this may be overly simplistic. European vaccine hesitancy levels correlate closely with popularity of populist parties while scientific populism refers specifically to populist distrust in scientific expertise. AIMS AND

methodCombining an evaluation of risk through the health belief model and the cognitive constructs from the theory of planned behaviour, with the influence of populist statements, anticipated regret, trust, and past healthcare behaviour, an online survey explored the components of vaccine decisions amongst a demographically representative Irish adult sample (N = 1995).

resultsThe regression model accounted for a large proportion of variance amongst the total sample. A primary set of influences suggests a considered risk evaluative decision-making approach while a second tier of weaker influences incorporates a broader set of values beyond cost-benefit analysis. Six ideological subsets were identified through K-means analysis. Segments were differentiated by subjective norms attitudes (particularly around social media), populist political attitudes, self-efficacy, perceptions of COVID-19 severity, and susceptibility to the condition.

conclusionsWhile the 'right thing to do' is clear when viewed through a lens of scientific expert advice, this is precisely the paradigm which populist movement rejects. Segmentations, such as the outputs from this study, validate the importance of proactively engaging with diverse communities both on and offline and afford a framework for developing and evaluating more refined, targeted, policies and interventions.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesHealth BehaviorHumansIntentionPandemicsVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesHealth belief modelPopulismSegmentationTheory of planned behaviourVaccines

Identifiers

PMID34826039
PMCPMC8617371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.