Exploring pre-pandemic patterns of vaccine decision-making with the 5C model: results from representative surveys in 2016 and 2018

BACKGROUND

The 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination (Confidence, Complacency, Constraints, Calculation, and Collective Responsibility) facilitate understanding vaccination decisions in specific target groups as well as the general public's informational needs. This study aims to explain pre-pandemic vaccination behaviour (a) in general, (b) for specific vaccines such as influenza, and (c) for certain target groups (e.g. people over the age of 59 years, parents, healthcare workers), using the 5C model and sociodemographic variables. The intention to get an influenza vaccination was also analysed for target groups.

METHODS

The 5C, self-reported vaccination behaviour and the intention to vaccinate were collected in two representative telephone surveys in Germany - one in 2016 (n1 = 5,012) and another in 2018 (n2 = 5,054). Parents, people over the age of 59 years, chronically ill people, people with a migratory background, pregnant women and healthcare workers were target groups.

RESULTS

Overall, the 5C model had higher explanatory power than sociodemographic variables. The pattern of vaccine hesitancy slightly differed between vaccinations and target groups. Confidence in safety and effectiveness was always a significant predictor. Complacency (the underestimation of disease risks) and Constraints were significant predictors as well. Calculation (of risks and benefits) was important for influenza vaccination intentions.

CONCLUSIONS

This work builds an important benchmark for understanding potential changes in vaccine acceptance due to the pandemic. The benchmark can be used in research on potential effects of the pandemic on vaccination behaviours. Intervention designers can also use the results to understand specific audiences and their vaccination decisions.

Validation and psychometric properties of the Italian Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX-I) scale

Despite the massive volume of scientific evidence on the benefits of immunisation, vaccine hesitancy is still a global health threat and represents an obstacle to controlling the spread of viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and its associated COVID-19. Thus, the present study aimed to adapt and validate an Italian version of the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale. The Italian version of the scale (VAX-I), along with validation measures (general health perceptions, perceived sensitivity to medicines, intention to get the flu vaccine, and trust in health authorities) were administered to a sample of 534 Italian participants aged 18 to 87 (M = 32.41, SD = 15.35). The original version of the VAX scale was translated into Italian using a back-translation method. The parallel and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the scale's four-factor structure fits the data well, as in the original version. Reliability coefficients indicated that the VAX-I scale showed good internal consistency and measurement invariance results demonstrated that the VAX-I scale is stable across gender. Construct validity was supported by the significant negative correlation with general health perceptions, intentions to get the flu vaccine, and trust in health authorities, and the weak but significant and positive correlation with perceived sensitivity to medicines. Overall, the VAX-I scale appears to be a valid instrument to assess vaccine hesitancy in the Italian context.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03209-5.

Regional differences in general practitioners' behaviours regarding influenza vaccination: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization recommends vaccination rates of 75% against seasonal influenza for patients over 65 years old. In the 2013/2014 season, the German vaccination rates ranged between 14 and 65%. This study aimed to compare the attitudes, personal characteristics and vaccination behaviours of general practitioners (GPs) in regions with high and low vaccination rates in Germany.

METHODS

In May 2016, a questionnaire was sent to 1594 GPs practising in 16 districts with the highest and the lowest vaccination rates in Western and Eastern Germany as described by the Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care in Germany for the 2013/2014 season. Descriptive statistics and multiple regression analyses were computed to identify potential factors associated with high vaccination rates.

RESULTS

A total response rate of 32% (515/1594 participants) was observed in the study. GPs reported their attitudes towards vaccination in general and vaccination against influenza as mostly 'very positive' (80%, n = 352 and 65%, n = 288, respectively). GPs practising in regions with low vaccination rates reported their attitudes towards vaccinations in general (p = 0.004) and towards influenza vaccination (p = 0.001) more negatively than their colleagues from regions with high vaccination rates. Multiple logistic regression identified an increasing influence of year-dependent changing efficiency on GPs' influenza rates as the strongest factor for predicting GPs from highly vaccinating regions (OR = 4.31 [1.12-16.60]), followed by the patient's vaccination refusal despite GP advice due to already receiving a vaccination from another physician (OR = 3.20 [1.89-5.43]) and vaccination information gathering through medical colleagues (OR = 2.26 [1.19-4.29]).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest a correlation between GPs' attitudes and regional vaccination rates. Beneath GPs' individual attitudes, the regional attitude patterns of patients, colleagues and medical assistants surrounding those GPs seem decisive and should be integrated into future campaigns to increase vaccination rates at a regional level.

Preferential differences in vaccination decision-making for oneself or one's child in The Netherlands: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

To optimize the focus of future public information campaigns in The Netherlands promoting the uptake of vaccines among adults and children, we quantified the contribution of several attributes to the vaccination decision.

METHOD

We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) among Dutch adults including six attributes, i.e. vaccine effectiveness, vaccine-preventable burden of disease (specified in severity and frequency), accessibility of vaccination in terms of co-payment and prescription requirements, frequency of mild side-effects, population-level vaccination coverage and local vaccination coverage among family and friends. Participants answered the DCE from their own perspective ('oneself' group) or with regard to a vaccine decision for their youngest child ('child' group). The data was analysed by means of panel mixed logit models.

RESULTS

We included 1547 adult participants (825 'oneself' and 722 'child'). Vaccine effectiveness was the most important attribute in the 'oneself' group, followed by burden of disease (relative importance (RI) 78%) and accessibility (RI 76%). In the 'child' group, burden of disease was most important, but tied closely with vaccine effectiveness (RI 97%). Of less importance was the risk of mild vaccine-related side-effects and both population and local vaccination coverage. Interestingly, participants were more willing to vaccinate when uptake among the population or family and friends was high, indicating that social influence and social norms plays a role.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine effectiveness and disease severity are key attributes in vaccination decision-making for adults making a decision for themselves and for parents who decide for their children. Hence, public information campaigns for both adult and child vaccination should primarily focus on these two attributes. In addition, reinforcing social norms may be considered.

Flu vaccination communication in Europe: What does the government communicate and how?

INTRODUCTION

The Flu vaccine is the most effective measure to prevent influenza. Yet, vaccination rates remain at sub-optimal levels, with 10%-29% coverage rates in the general population of the EU. As mistrust in vaccines has increased, effective strategies are needed and one is communication. The aim of this research is to identify vaccination recommendations of the health ministries in 5 European Member States and to investigate the communication strategies used.

METHODS

Two methods were employed in this study. A review of flu vaccination recommendations in the European Union and five Members States (Austria, Germany, Malta, Ireland and United Kingdom). Next a content analysis was conducted of flu vaccination communication in those six contexts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All countries recommend flu vaccination as a primary protection tool, but they differed in their recommendations for various target audiences. Channels for communication included seven websites and 42 other materials. The main messages used were gained framed promoting protection, either for oneself, family or patients. Most communications provided basic information replying on providing facts and knowledge about the flu and the benefits of vaccination. No information on the development of the communication or its effects were found.

CONCLUSION

Communicating flu vaccination as a protective tool is common across countries and is consistent with the benefits of vaccination. Furthermore, the communications in the countries were not consistent with their recommendations. As the recommendations vary across and within countries, communication becomes a challenge. They should, at a minimum, be consistent with EU and country specific recommendations.