Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256702›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Development and validation of the COVID-19 vaccine beliefs scale for the Chinese population.

Zhengjia Ren, Zhongyao Xie, Zijie Ma

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Zhengjia RenDepartment of Clinical Psychology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 401120, China. renzhengjia@hotmail.com.
Zhongyao XieSchool of Sociology, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, 100088, China.
Zijie MaDepartment of Psychology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China.

Funding

Chongqing Education Commission Grant No. KJQN202100452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt present, there is no culturally appropriate scale designed to measure Chinese people's attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Understanding people's attitudes and beliefs about vaccines can help policy makers and health care professionals better evaluate local beliefs to increase vaccine coverage and minimize COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

methodsWe developed a COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and beliefs scale comprising items based on qualitative research data. We then conducted an explorative and confirmatory factor analysis using data from two online sources.

resultsThe 26-item vaccine belief scale includes a five-factor model: vaccine benefit (VB), vaccine concern (VC), observing others' reactions to vaccination (VR), the influence of authority and others toward vaccination (VI), and common sense about vaccination (VS). The multivariate analysis results showed that VB (OR = 1.065, 95% CI 1.035-1.097), VR (OR = 0.878, 95% CI 0.832-0.927), and VS (OR = 1.076, 95% CI 1.032-1.122) were associated with the intention to receive the vaccine. These results implied that VC (OR = 0.957, 95% CI 0.928-0.987) could predict the choice not to be vaccinated. A correlation between beliefs about vaccines and conspiracy theories and fear of COVID-19 was also found and discussed.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that the locally designed and culturally sensitive scale has good reliability and validity. The questionnaire provides researchers with a standardized assessment tool to measure Chinese people's beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedChinaEast Asian PeopleFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19CultureScale developmentVaccinationVaccine Beliefs

Identifiers

PMID39256702
PMCPMC11389482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.