ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2021
Understanding the continuous vaccination of the COVID-19 vaccine: an empirical study from China.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The continuance intention to vaccinate against COVID-19: An empirical study from Malaysia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Impact of social media news on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and vaccination behavior.Telematics and informatics · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting the Public Intention to Repeat the COVID-19 Vaccination: Implications for Vaccine Communication.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Determinants Influenced by COVID-19 Vaccine: Employing the Health Action Process Approach and the Belief in Conspiracy Theories.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Article
- What Motivates People to Receive Continuous COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Shots? An Expectation Confirmation Theory Perspective.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Understanding the impact process of vaccine adoption for COVID-19.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccination for the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provides an effective approach for the general improvement of social safety and individual health. However, given that the current COVID-19 vaccine can only work for a period of time, the continuous vaccination of the vaccine will be particularly important. Using the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) Model, Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM) and vaccine hesitancy (VH) theory, this research evaluates the continuous vaccination for COVID-19. This research selected Chinese survey platform to recruit respondents and conducted online surveys. A total of 768 Chinese individuals who were vaccinated participated in the survey, and 561 responses were effective after screening. Six valuable and novel findings are identified through this research. First, perceived efficacy has a positive significant impact on vaccination intention, but the positive effects of outcome expectancy and risk perception on vaccination intention are not significant. Second, social positive cues play a significant role in promoting vaccination intention. Third, VH has a negative significant influence on vaccination intention. Fourth, vaccination behavior produces a positive significant effect on perceived usefulness and satisfaction, respectively. Fifth, perceived usefulness exerted a positive significant impact on satisfaction and continuous vaccination, respectively. Sixth, satisfaction has no positive significant influence on continuous vaccination. Our theoretical model, which is the main contribution of this research, indicates that individual continuous vaccination is a process from motivation to intention, and from intention to behavior, and then from behavior to continuous vaccination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.