Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Investigating how historical legacies of militarized violence can motivate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Evidence from global dyadic survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          In almost all countries, COVID-19 vaccines available for public use are produced outside of that country. Consistent with recent social science research, we hypothesize that legacies of violent conflict from vaccine-producing against vaccine-consuming countries may motivate vaccine hesitancy among people in targeted countries that purchase vaccines produced by the erstwhile aggressor.

          Methods

          Our analyses draw on data from the Correlates of War project and a large, representative survey of 18,291 adults that asked respondents in 16 countries to self-report their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines originating from 12 potential vaccine-producing countries in December 2020 (184 country-pairs, 208,422 ratings). For the main analysis, we used random-effect linear probability models and turned to Bayesian Model Averaging to probe the robustness of the main findings.

          Results

          We demonstrate that elevated levels of historical violence between vaccine-producing and vaccine-consuming countries are associated with increased negative feelings toward a COVID-19 vaccine produced by the vaccine producer.

          Conclusion

          Global vaccine hesitancy may result, at least in part, from public perceptions of historical conflict between vaccine-producing and vaccine-consuming countries. These results can help public health practitioners better preempt and adjust for cross-national vaccine resistance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The theory of planned behavior

          Icek Ajzen (1991)
          Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4

            Maximum likelihood or restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimates of the parameters in linear mixed-effects models can be determined using the lmer function in the lme4 package for R. As for most model-fitting functions in R, the model is described in an lmer call by a formula, in this case including both fixed- and random-effects terms. The formula and data together determine a numerical representation of the model from which the profiled deviance or the profiled REML criterion can be evaluated as a function of some of the model parameters. The appropriate criterion is optimized, using one of the constrained optimization functions in R, to provide the parameter estimates. We describe the structure of the model, the steps in evaluating the profiled deviance or REML criterion, and the structure of classes or types that represents such a model. Sufficient detail is included to allow specialization of these structures by users who wish to write functions to fit specialized linear mixed models, such as models incorporating pedigrees or smoothing splines, that are not easily expressible in the formula language used by lmer. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1) ISSN:1548-7660
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

              The SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy concluded that vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccination despite availability of vaccination services. Vaccine hesitancy is complex and context specific, varying across time, place and vaccines. It is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. The Working Group retained the term 'vaccine' rather than 'vaccination' hesitancy, although the latter more correctly implies the broader range of immunization concerns, as vaccine hesitancy is the more commonly used term. While high levels of hesitancy lead to low vaccine demand, low levels of hesitancy do not necessarily mean high vaccine demand. The Vaccine Hesitancy Determinants Matrix displays the factors influencing the behavioral decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine/vaccination-specific influences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Soc Sci Med
                Soc Sci Med
                Social Science & Medicine (1982)
                The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0277-9536
                1873-5347
                6 September 2022
                6 September 2022
                : 115346
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Social Sciences Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK
                [b ]Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, 817 Henderson Street Columbia, SC, 29208-4114, USA
                [c ]School of Public Health, Boston University, 715 Albany St, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author.
                Article
                S0277-9536(22)00652-9 115346
                10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115346
                9446603
                36108562
                8d936ae4-448b-4b7f-80da-27dc16f74655
                © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 20 June 2022
                : 27 August 2022
                : 1 September 2022
                Categories
                Article

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article