0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding COVID-19 vaccination behaviors and intentions in Ghana: A Behavioral Insights (BI) study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Introduction

          Vaccine uptake is influenced by a variety of factors. Behavioral Insights (BI) can be used to address vaccine hesitancy to understand the factors that influence the decision to take or refuse a vaccine.

          Methodology

          This two-part study consisted of a survey designed to identify the influence of various drivers of people’s COVID-19 vaccination status and their intention to take the vaccine in Ghana, as well as an experiment to test which of several behaviorally informed message frames had the greatest effect on vaccine acceptance. Data was collected from a total of 1494 participants; 1089 respondents (73%) reported already being vaccinated and 405 respondents (27%) reported not being vaccinated yet. The mobile phone-based surveys were conducted between December 2021 and January 2022 using Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to recruit study participants. Data analysis included regression models, relative weights analyses, and ANOVAs.

          Results

          The findings indicated that vaccine uptake in Ghana is influenced more by social factors (what others think) than by practical factors such as ease of vaccination. Respondents’ perceptions of their family’s and religious leaders’ attitudes towards the vaccine were among the most influential drivers. Unexpectedly, healthcare providers’ positive attitudes about the COVID-19 vaccine had a significant negative relationship with respondents’ vaccination behavior. Vaccine intention was positively predicted by risk perception, ease of vaccination, and the degree to which respondents considered the vaccine effective. Perceptions of religious leaders’ attitudes also significantly and positively predicted respondents’ intention to get vaccinated. Although perceptions of religious leaders’ views about the vaccine are an important driver of vaccine acceptance, results asking respondents to rank-order who influences them suggest that people may not be consciously aware—or do not want to admit—the degree to which they are affected by what religious leaders think. Message frames that included fear, altruism, social norms were all followed by positive responses toward the vaccine, as were messages with three distinct messengers: Ghana Health Services, a doctor, and religious leaders.

          Conclusions

          What drives COVID-19 vaccine intentions does not necessarily drive behaviors. The results of this study can be used to develop appropriate COVID-19 vaccine uptake strategies targeting the most important drivers of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, using effective message frames.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions

          Background Improving the design and implementation of evidence-based practice depends on successful behaviour change interventions. This requires an appropriate method for characterising interventions and linking them to an analysis of the targeted behaviour. There exists a plethora of frameworks of behaviour change interventions, but it is not clear how well they serve this purpose. This paper evaluates these frameworks, and develops and evaluates a new framework aimed at overcoming their limitations. Methods A systematic search of electronic databases and consultation with behaviour change experts were used to identify frameworks of behaviour change interventions. These were evaluated according to three criteria: comprehensiveness, coherence, and a clear link to an overarching model of behaviour. A new framework was developed to meet these criteria. The reliability with which it could be applied was examined in two domains of behaviour change: tobacco control and obesity. Results Nineteen frameworks were identified covering nine intervention functions and seven policy categories that could enable those interventions. None of the frameworks reviewed covered the full range of intervention functions or policies, and only a minority met the criteria of coherence or linkage to a model of behaviour. At the centre of a proposed new framework is a 'behaviour system' involving three essential conditions: capability, opportunity, and motivation (what we term the 'COM-B system'). This forms the hub of a 'behaviour change wheel' (BCW) around which are positioned the nine intervention functions aimed at addressing deficits in one or more of these conditions; around this are placed seven categories of policy that could enable those interventions to occur. The BCW was used reliably to characterise interventions within the English Department of Health's 2010 tobacco control strategy and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence's guidance on reducing obesity. Conclusions Interventions and policies to change behaviour can be usefully characterised by means of a BCW comprising: a 'behaviour system' at the hub, encircled by intervention functions and then by policy categories. Research is needed to establish how far the BCW can lead to more efficient design of effective interventions.
            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
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine

              Several coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are currently in human trials. In June 2020, we surveyed 13,426 people in 19 countries to determine potential acceptance rates and factors influencing acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Of these, 71.5% of participants reported that they would be very or somewhat likely to take a COVID-19 vaccine, and 61.4% reported that they would accept their employer’s recommendation to do so. Differences in acceptance rates ranged from almost 90% (in China) to less than 55% (in Russia). Respondents reporting higher levels of trust in information from government sources were more likely to accept a vaccine and take their employer’s advice to do so.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                9 February 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 2
                : e0292532
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America
                [2 ] Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America
                [3 ] UNICEF Ghana Country Office, Accra, Ghana
                [4 ] VIAMO, Accra, Ghana
                [5 ] UNICEF Regional Office Central and West Africa, Dakar, Senegal
                [6 ] School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
                Freelance Consultant, Myanmar, MYANMAR
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3169-5872
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3742-7860
                Article
                PONE-D-22-26400
                10.1371/journal.pone.0292532
                10857727
                38335165
                ce61e968-6e20-42ad-be70-306cb5b804cc
                © 2024 Vepachedu et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 23 September 2022
                : 21 September 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 12, Pages: 22
                Funding
                Funded by: Government of Denmark
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100008627, Global Affairs Canada;
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Infectious Disease Control
                Vaccines
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Immunology
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Preventive Medicine
                Vaccination and Immunization
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Social Sciences
                Anthropology
                Cultural Anthropology
                Religion
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Religion
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Africa
                Ghana
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article