Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35377317›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2022

Papers Please - Predictive Factors of National and International Attitudes Toward Immunity and Vaccination Passports: Online Representative Surveys.

Paul M Garrett, Joshua P White, Simon Dennis, Stephan Lewandowsky, Cheng-Ta Yang, Yasmina Okan, Andrew Perfors, Daniel R Little, Anastasia Kozyreva, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. COVID-19, travel restrictions and environmental consequences.Environment, development and sustainability · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Public views on the Covid-19 immunity certificate: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Paul M GarrettMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8200-8377
Joshua P WhiteMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3129-5473
Simon DennisMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1890-1187
Stephan LewandowskySchool of Psychological Science, The University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1655-2013
Cheng-Ta YangDepartment of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-6561-763X
Yasmina OkanCentre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7963-1363
Andrew PerforsMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6976-0732
Daniel R LittleMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3607-5525
Anastasia KozyrevaCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8037-9919
Philipp Lorenz-SpreenCenter for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6319-4154
Takashi KusumiGraduate School of Education, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7968-2304
Yoshihisa KashimaMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3627-3273
The University of Melbourne · AUMax Planck Institute for Human Development · DEKyoto University of Education · JPTaipei Medical University · TWThe University of Western Australia · AUUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C57775/A22182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are introducing digital passports that allow citizens to return to normal activities if they were previously infected with (immunity passport) or vaccinated against (vaccination passport) SARS-CoV-2. To be effective, policy decision-makers must know whether these passports will be widely accepted by the public and under what conditions. This study focuses attention on immunity passports, as these may prove useful in countries both with and without an existing COVID-19 vaccination program; however, our general findings also extend to vaccination passports.

objectiveWe aimed to assess attitudes toward the introduction of immunity passports in six countries, and determine what social, personal, and contextual factors predicted their support.

methodsWe collected 13,678 participants through online representative sampling across six countries-Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom-during April to May of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, and assessed attitudes and support for the introduction of immunity passports.

resultsImmunity passport support was moderate to low, being the highest in Germany (775/1507 participants, 51.43%) and the United Kingdom (759/1484, 51.15%); followed by Taiwan (2841/5989, 47.44%), Australia (963/2086, 46.16%), and Spain (693/1491, 46.48%); and was the lowest in Japan (241/1081, 22.94%). Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used to assess predictive factors for immunity passport support across countries. International results showed neoliberal worldviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.22), personal concern (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.16), perceived virus severity (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), the fairness of immunity passports (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.36-2.66), liking immunity passports (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.61-2.94), and a willingness to become infected to gain an immunity passport (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.51-1.68) were all predictive factors of immunity passport support. By contrast, gender (woman; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.82-0.98), immunity passport concern (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.65), and risk of harm to society (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.76) predicted a decrease in support for immunity passports. Minor differences in predictive factors were found between countries and results were modeled separately to provide national accounts of these data.

conclusionsOur research suggests that support for immunity passports is predicted by the personal benefits and societal risks they confer. These findings generalized across six countries and may also prove informative for the introduction of vaccination passports, helping policymakers to introduce effective COVID-19 passport policies in these six countries and around the world.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAttitudeBayes TheoremCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19cross-culturaldigital certificateshealth policyimmunity passportinternationalpolicySARS-CoV-2vaccination passportvaccine

Identifiers

PMID35377317
PMCPMC9290331
OpenAlexW4225832371

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.