ArticleBMC public health2026
Emotions, preventive measures, and risk perception in post-emergency COVID-19: a cross-sectional study in Italian university staff during the seasonal vaccination campaign.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundDespite the end of the global health emergency, COVID-19 is expected to persist and continue to pose a threat to public health, due to the emergence of new virus variants and the risks of long-term effects. Therefore, seasonal vaccinations for vulnerable populations (i.e., older adults and individuals with underlying medical conditions) and extensive testing to detect infection remain crucial strategies for protecting public health. This study aimed to investigate attitudes, intentions, behaviors, and emotions related to COVID-19, vaccination, and the use of antigen tests among university staff during the 2023–2024 COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Italy.
methodAn ad hoc anonymous survey was administered to 267 university staff members, aged 18–70 years, between February 15 and March 20, 2024. Logistic regression models were estimated to evaluate the determinants of vaccination adherence, risk perception, and test-taking intention.
resultsAdherence to the vaccination campaign was low (13.1% overall; 30.6% among individuals aged ≥ 60) and was positively associated with older age (OR = 1.84, CI [1.01, 3.33]) and with a greater number of previous vaccine doses (OR = 22.65, CI [7.00, 73.28]). Trust/hope toward vaccination increased the likelihood of adherence (OR = 1.76, CI [1.10, 2.82]), whereas higher early-pandemic anxiety/worry reduced it (OR = 0.46, CI [0.27, 0.77]). Individuals who had never contracted COVID-19 were less likely to perceive high infection risk (OR = 0.31, CI [0.17, 0.58]), and higher early-pandemic anxiety/worry was associated with greater perceived risk (OR = 1.31, CI [1.06, 1.62]); however, risk perception did not predict COVID-19 vaccination adherence or test-taking intentions. The intention to take an antigen test was greater among individuals who adopted more preventive measures, such as mask use, distancing, and hygiene behaviors (OR = 1.56, CI [1.19, 2.05]), who had received more vaccine doses (OR = 2.24, CI [1.22, 4.11]), and who reported greater trust/hope toward testing (OR = 2.18, CI [1.46, 3.27]).
conclusionsOverall, the findings underscore the central role of emotional responses and past preventive behaviors, rather than risk perception, in shaping both COVID-19 vaccination adherence and test-taking intentions during the post-emergency phase.
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.