Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34923316›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies2022

Profiling vaccine believers and skeptics in nurses: A latent profile analysis.

Cyrus Lap Kwan Leung, Kin-Kit Li, Vivian Wan In Wei, Arthur Tang, Samuel Yeung Shan Wong, Shui Shan Lee, Kin On Kwok

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Profiling vaccine hesitancy in nursing to tailor public healthcare policies: A cross-sectional international study.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Cyrus Lap Kwan LeungDepartment of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Kin-Kit LiDepartment of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. Electronic address: ben.li@cityu.edu.hk.
Vivian Wan In WeiJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Arthur TangCollege of Computing and Informatics, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of).
Samuel Yeung Shan WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Shui Shan LeeJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Stanley Ho Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Kin On KwokJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Stanley Ho Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; Shenzhen Research Institute of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China; Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. Electronic address: kkokwok@cuhk.edu.hk.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKCity University of Hong Kong · HKDepartment of Health · CNSungkyunkwan University · KR

Funding

Wellcome Trust 200861/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA tailored immunization program is deemed more successful in encouraging vaccination. Understanding the profiles of vaccine hesitancy constructs in nurses can help policymakers in devising such programs. Encouraging vaccination in nurses is an important step in building public confidence in the upcoming COVID-19 and influenza vaccination campaigns.

objectivesUsing a person-centered approach, this study aimed to reveal the profiles of the 5C psychological constructs of vaccine hesitancy (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) among Hong Kong nurses.

designCross-sectional online survey. SETTINGS: With the promotion of a professional nursing organization, we invited Hong Kong nurses to complete an online survey between mid-March and late April 2020 during the COVID-19 outbreak.

participants1,193 eligible nurses (mean age = 40.82, SD = 10.49; with 90.0% being female) were included in the analyses.

methodsIn the online survey, we asked the invited nurses to report their demographics, COVID-19-related work demands (including the supply of personal protective equipment, work stress, and attitudes towards workplace infection control policies), the 5C vaccine hesitancy components, seasonal influenza vaccine uptake history, and the COVID-19 vaccine uptake intention. Latent profile analysis was employed to identify distinct vaccine hesitancy antecedent subgroups.

resultsResults revealed five profiles, including "believers" (31%; high confidence, collective responsibility; low complacency, constraint), "skeptics" (11%; opposite to the believers), "outsiders" (14%; low calculation, collective responsibility), "contradictors" (4%; high in all 5C constructs), and "middlers" (40%; middle in all 5C constructs). Believers were less educated, reported more long-term illnesses, greater work stress, higher perceived personal protective equipment sufficiency, and stronger trust in government than skeptics. They were older and had higher perceived personal protective equipment sufficiency than middlers. Also, believers were older and had greater work stress than outsiders. From the highest to the lowest on vaccination uptake and intention were believers and contradictors, then middlers and outsiders, and finally skeptics.

conclusionDifferent immunization programs can be devised based on the vaccine hesitancy profiles and their predictors. Despite both profiles being low in vaccination uptake and intention, our results distinguished between outsiders and skeptics regarding their different levels of information-seeking engagement. The profile structure reveals the possibilities in devising tailored interventions based on their 5C characteristics. The current data could serve as the reference for the identification of individual profile membership and future profiling studies. Future endeavor is needed to examine the generalizability of the profile structure in other populations and across different study sites. Tweetable abstract: Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy profiles of Hong Kong nurses (believers, sceptics, outsiders, contradictors and middlers) highlight the importance of tailored vaccine campaigns.

Indexed as

COVID-19Influenza VaccinesAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleSARS-CoV-2Vaccination HesitancyCOVID-19 VaccinesInfluenza VaccinesCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccineInfluenza vaccineLatent profile analysisNursePerson-centered approachVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID34923316
PMCPMC8676577
OpenAlexW3217801757

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.