ArticleBMC public health2025
What made people (more) positive toward the COVID-19 vaccine? Exploring positive and negative deviance perspectives.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the associations of certain beliefs and worldviews (e.g., religiosity and belief in conspiracy theories) with non-vaccination behavior, some individuals who hold these views still choose vaccination, and vice versa. This study aims to explore why individuals choose to be vaccinated against COVID-19, despite holding opposing beliefs and worldviews, or refrain from doing so, when their beliefs align with vaccination. By examining both positive and negative deviant behavior, we seek to identify strategies and barriers for public health officials to develop interventions to improve vaccination uptake.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured online interviews with 21 Dutch adults aged 28-75 years (13 positive deviants and 8 negative deviants) between January and July 2022. Interviewees were recruited on the basis of their response patterns in a survey that was part of a larger project on understanding vaccine hesitancy in the Netherlands. The interviews focused on how they formed their intention toward the COVID-19 vaccine and what could change it in the future. The data were analyzed via semi-inductive coding with Atlas.ti.23.
resultsPositive deviants got vaccinated because they perceived COVID-19 as a threat, wanted to protect (vulnerable) others, or wanted to regain their freedom. Negative deviants did not get vaccinated because they did not perceive the vaccine as appropriate, the disease not as a threat, for religious reasons, or did not trust the authorities. The most important barriers and strategies that were identified that could improve vaccination uptake were unrelated to underlying beliefs and worldviews but related to characteristics of the vaccine such as effectiveness and (potential) side-effects.
conclusionThis study demonstrates the applicability of traditional health psychology models, such as the health belief model, in explaining deviant vaccination behavior. Additionally, leveraging prosocial motivations and imposing restrictions on non-vaccinated individuals have been effective strategies for promoting vaccination uptake, albeit restricted to pandemic contexts. As some individuals will remain resistant to vaccination efforts, tailored interventions for vaccine-hesitant individuals may yield greater success rather than attempting to persuade strict opponents of vaccination.
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.