Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38314287›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Testing an extended theory of planned behaviour in predicting Covid-19 vaccination intention over the course of the pandemic: A three-wave repeated cross-sectional study.

Miriam Capasso, Mark Conner, Daniela Caso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Miriam CapassoDepartment of Humanities, University of Naples Federico II, Italy.
Mark ConnerSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, UK.
Daniela CasoDepartment of Humanities, University of Naples Federico II, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Mass vaccination against Covid-19 has been recognised as the most effective strategy for overcoming the pandemic emergency and remains crucial in the ongoing efforts to mitigate the impact of the virus. The present study aimed to test the efficacy of an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) model in predicting vaccination intention in three different phases of the pandemic. Understanding how psychological drivers of vaccine acceptance may have changed throughout the pandemic is essential for informing public health strategies and addressing vaccine hesitancy, even in the current post-pandemic context. Methods: Using a repeated cross-sectional survey, we tested the hypothesised extended TPB model (intention, attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, anticipated affective reactions, risk perception, trust in science, trust in institutions and religiosity) across three independent samples: before (T1: November-December 2020; Results: Results indicated significant differences between the time points in all investigated variables, pointing to a general trend of improvement in vaccine acceptability levels at T2 compared to T1, and a worsening at T3 compared to the other two time points. Interestingly, net of these differences, a multi-group Structural Equation Modeling analysis supported the invariance, across time, of the structural relationships examined within the extended TPB. Conclusion: Findings demonstrated the efficacy of the TPB in predicting Covid-19 vaccination intention at different stages of the pandemic, suggesting that the model, in its extended version, represents a valuable framework for designing interventions aimed at promoting vaccine acceptance.

Indexed as

Covid-19 vaccineRepeated cross-sectional surveyTheory of planned behaviourVaccination intentionVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID38314287
PMCPMC10837554

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.