24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Integrating health behavior theories to predict American’s intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine

      research-article
      a , b , *
      Patient Education and Counseling
      Elsevier B.V.
      COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccine, HBM, TPB, EPPM

      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

          Objective

          Integrating constructs from three prominent health behavior theories including the extended parallel process model, the health belief model, and the theory of planned behavior, this study seeks to identify sociopsychological factors that influenced American’s intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

          Method

          An online survey was delivered to a U.S. sample ( N = 934), assessing the influences of risk perception and fear associated with COVID-19, beliefs about and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, self-efficacy, social and psychological contexts, and demographic characteristics on people’s intention to get COVID-19 vaccines.

          Results

          Most respondents intended to get vaccinated. However, they tended to underestimate their risks of contracting COVID-19. Disease exposure led to higher uptake intent via the mediation of fear. Safety concerns negatively influenced vaccination intention, while perceived community benefits were positively associated with vaccination intention. Positive attitudes toward vaccines and recent vaccine history were positively linked to vaccination intent.

          Conclusion

          This study attests the effectiveness of HBT constructs in predicting people’s intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

          Practice Implications

          The results point to the importance of fostering confidence in vaccine safety and countering overoptimism of individual susceptibility to the disease in interventions promoting COVID-19 vaccines uptake.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

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

            Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

            Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior1

              Icek Ajzen (2002)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Patient Educ Couns
                Patient Educ Couns
                Patient Education and Counseling
                Elsevier B.V.
                0738-3991
                1873-5134
                17 February 2021
                17 February 2021
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Public Relations, College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA
                [b ]Department of Communication, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: University at Buffalo, State University of New York, 356 Baldy Hall, North Campus, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA.
                Article
                S0738-3991(21)00129-4
                10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.031
                7889032
                33632632
                be200e52-b1f0-4c95-bed0-4422b90a81a3
                © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

                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
                : 15 January 2021
                : 10 February 2021
                : 13 February 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Education
                covid-19,covid-19 vaccine,hbm,tpb,eppm
                Education
                covid-19, covid-19 vaccine, hbm, tpb, eppm

                Comments

                Comment on this article