Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37659004›Full record

ArticleJournal of behavioral medicine2024

Using behavioral theory to understand partisan differences in COVID-19 vaccination and booster intentions.

Gregory Pavela, Tamika Smith, Victoria McDonald, Leah Bryan, Robin Riddle

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of behavioral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gregory PavelaDepartment of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 227K Ryals Building, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL, 35225, USA. pavela@uab.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5750-4021
Tamika SmithDepartment of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 227K Ryals Building, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL, 35225, USA.
Victoria McDonaldDepartment of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 227K Ryals Building, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL, 35225, USA.
Leah BryanDepartment of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 227K Ryals Building, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL, 35225, USA.
Robin RiddleDepartment of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 227K Ryals Building, 1665 University Blvd., Birmingham, AL, 35225, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for two COVID-19 vaccines. Two years later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that more than 250 million individuals had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Despite the large numbers of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19, partisan differences surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine emerged, creating a potential challenge for health communications aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. A better understanding of partisan differences in attitudes and intentions towards vaccination may help guide public health strategies aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. To determine whether a commonly used theory of behavioral intentions used to craft public health messages explains partisan differences in intentions. Data were drawn from a national panel of US adults and collected between February 21, 2022, and March 3, 2022, using an online survey (n = 1845). Among respondents identifying as either Democrat or Republican (n = 1466), path analysis models were estimated to test whether partisan differences in vaccination or booster intentions were explained by the theoretical constructs of protection motivation theory (PMT). PMT accounted for approximately half of the covariate-adjusted mean difference in COVID-19 vaccination intentions between Democrats and Republicans, and nearly all the mean difference in booster intentions. Party affiliation indirectly affected intentions via its association with perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, vaccine/booster efficacy, and perceived costs of getting a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose. Compared with Democrats, Republicans may be less likely to get vaccinated or receive a booster dose because of beliefs that they are less susceptible to COVID-19, that the vaccine is less effective, and that vaccination comes with disadvantages. Theories of behavioral intentions can help to identify the underlying theoretical determinants driving behavioral differences between political groups.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health CommunicationAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansIntentionUnited StatesVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesBehavioral theoryBehavior and behavior mechanismsCOVID-19MediationProtection motivation theoryVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID37659004
OpenAlexW4386387504

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.