For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
88
views
56
references
 Top references
cited by
415
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      119
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Beyond confidence: Development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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

          Monitoring the reasons why a considerable number of people do not receive recommended vaccinations allows identification of important trends over time, and designing and evaluating strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Existing validated measures assessing vaccine hesitancy focus primarily on confidence in vaccines and the system that delivers them. However, empirical and theoretical work has stated that complacency (not perceiving diseases as high risk), constraints (structural and psychological barriers), calculation (engagement in extensive information searching), and aspects pertaining to collective responsibility (willingness to protect others) also play a role in explaining vaccination behavior. The objective was therefore to develop a validated measure of these 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

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

          High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.

          June Tangney, Roy Baumeister, Angie Luzio Boone (2004)
          What good is self-control? We incorporated a new measure of individual differences in self-control into two large investigations of a broad spectrum of behaviors. The new scale showed good internal consistency and retest reliability. Higher scores on self-control correlated with a higher grade point average, better adjustment (fewer reports of psychopathology, higher self-esteem), less binge eating and alcohol abuse, better relationships and interpersonal skills, secure attachment, and more optimal emotional responses. Tests for curvilinearity failed to indicate any drawbacks of so-called overcontrol, and the positive effects remained after controlling for social desirability. Low self-control is thus a significant risk factor for a broad range of personal and interpersonal problems.
          Article 0 comments Cited 707 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey

            Heidi Larson, Alexandre de Figueiredo, Zhao Xiahong … (2016)
            Background Public trust in immunization is an increasingly important global health issue. Losses in confidence in vaccines and immunization programmes can lead to vaccine reluctance and refusal, risking disease outbreaks and challenging immunization goals in high- and low-income settings. National and international immunization stakeholders have called for better monitoring of vaccine confidence to identify emerging concerns before they evolve into vaccine confidence crises. Methods We perform a large-scale, data-driven study on worldwide attitudes to immunizations. This survey – which we believe represents the largest survey on confidence in immunization to date – examines perceptions of vaccine importance, safety, effectiveness, and religious compatibility among 65,819 individuals across 67 countries. Hierarchical models are employed to probe relationships between individual- and country-level socio-economic factors and vaccine attitudes obtained through the four-question, Likert-scale survey. Findings Overall sentiment towards vaccinations is positive across all 67 countries, however there is wide variability between countries and across world regions. Vaccine-safety related sentiment is particularly negative in the European region, which has seven of the ten least confident countries, with 41% of respondents in France and 36% of respondents in Bosnia & Herzegovina reporting that they disagree that vaccines are safe (compared to a global average of 13%). The oldest age group (65+) and Roman Catholics (amongst all faiths surveyed) are associated with positive views on vaccine sentiment, while the Western Pacific region reported the highest level of religious incompatibility with vaccines. Countries with high levels of schooling and good access to health services are associated with lower rates of positive sentiment, pointing to an emerging inverse relationship between vaccine sentiments and socio-economic status. Conclusions Regular monitoring of vaccine attitudes – coupled with monitoring of local immunization rates – at the national and sub-national levels can identify populations with declining confidence and acceptance. These populations should be prioritized to further investigate the drivers of negative sentiment and to inform appropriate interventions to prevent adverse public health outcomes.
            Article 0 comments Cited 384 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Measuring vaccine hesitancy: The development of a survey tool.

              Heidi Larson, Caitlin Jarrett, William Schulz … (2015)
              In March 2012, the SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy was convened to define the term "vaccine hesitancy", as well as to map the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop tools to measure and address the nature and scale of hesitancy in settings where it is becoming more evident. The definition of vaccine hesitancy and a matrix of determinants guided the development of a survey tool to assess the nature and scale of hesitancy issues. Additionally, vaccine hesitancy questions were piloted in the annual WHO-UNICEF joint reporting form, completed by National Immunization Managers globally. The objective of characterizing the nature and scale of vaccine hesitancy issues is to better inform the development of appropriate strategies and policies to address the concerns expressed, and to sustain confidence in vaccination. The Working Group developed a matrix of the determinants of vaccine hesitancy informed by a systematic review of peer reviewed and grey literature, and by the expertise of the working group. The matrix mapped the key factors influencing the decision to accept, delay or reject some or all vaccines under three categories: contextual, individual and group, and vaccine-specific. These categories framed the menu of survey questions presented in this paper to help diagnose and address vaccine hesitancy.
              Article 0 comments Cited 321 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS One
                Title: PloS one
                Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
                ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203
                ISSN (Print): 1932-6203
                Publication date (Electronic): 2018
                Volume: 13
                Issue: 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ] CEREB - Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
                [2 ] Media and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
                [3 ] School of Business and Economics, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: PONE-D-18-22026
                DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208601
                PMC ID: 6285469
                PubMed ID: 30532274
                SO-VID: 3e155271-2a8a-47a0-a1bf-79334b1b956f
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content119

                See all similar

                Cited by411

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors961

                See all reference authors