ArticlePloS one2022
Beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccinations of young adults in the United Kingdom: An interview study applying the Integrated Change Model.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy in the UK: Implications for future TB vaccine adoption.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Using machine learning algorithms to predict COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A year after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines in Ghana.Vaccine: X · 2024Article
- Leveraging Artificial Intelligence to Predict Health Belief Model and COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake Using Survey Text from US Nurses.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionYoung adults are considered one of the most hesitant groups towards getting vaccinated in the UK, which threatens the success of the vaccination program in ending the pandemic. Identifying and understanding the socio-cognitive beliefs is important to effectively design and implement health communication interventions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the underlying beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccinations among young adults in the UK.
methodsThe study consisted of online, one-on-one interviews with 18 individuals (6 males, 12 females) aged between 18 and 29 years, conducted in June 2021. The guiding theoretical framework was the I-Change Model. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were independently coded by two researchers by using the constructs of the I-Change Model. Belief statements were elicited from the codes and the frequency of belief statements was recorded and compared between intenders and non-intenders.
resultsSimilar beliefs were observed in intenders and non-intenders for most constructs of the I-Change Model. However, non-intenders distinguished themselves from intenders by their higher perceived risks of side effects and higher perceived disadvantages of being vaccinated. Non-intenders expressed the belief that the risk of unknown or long-term side effects, such as blood clotting and impact on fertility, were the main reason for them not to be willing to vaccinate. In addition, in both groups, participants had mostly similar beliefs as their friends and family.
conclusionThis research provides insights in the specific beliefs of the young adult population of the UK regarding COVID-19 vaccinations, which could have implications for health communication interventions. The findings suggest that such interventions should focus on reducing the uncertainty regarding short- and long-term effects and potentially having a focus on the entire social environment of young adults.
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.