The Dynamic Relationship between the Intention and Final Decision for the COVID-19 Booster: A Study among Students and Staff at the University of Liège, Belgium.
COVID-19
academic population
intention and final COVID-19 booster status
prevention
public health
Journal
Vaccines
ISSN: 2076-393X
Titre abrégé: Vaccines (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101629355
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Sep 2022
06 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
01
08
2022
revised:
31
08
2022
accepted:
02
09
2022
entrez:
23
9
2022
pubmed:
24
9
2022
medline:
24
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While many studies have documented the intentions for the COVID-19 vaccine booster, few have explored the change from intention to final decision. This study explores the COVID-19 booster intentions and the change from intention to decision in a primo-vaccinated university population, with a distinction between staff members and students. It looks at the sociodemographic and medical characteristics, health literacy, personal COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, and attitudes/intentions regarding the booster, among the 1030 participants (64.4% staff members, 61.3% female, median age 36.0 years). Of the 8.7% who were initially hesitant, 72.7% ultimately got a booster and 27.3% did not. Another 84.2% intended to get a booster and 7.1% did not. Among the latter two groups, 88.9% maintained their intention and 11.1% changed their minds. The determinants associated with the intentions were health literacy and previous intentions regarding the COVID-19 primo-vaccination. The determinants associated with the change to non-vaccination were a previous COVID-19 infection, a past COVID-19 primo-vaccination intention, and a neutralizing antibody level. The results point to an opening for the support in decision-making, with a significant percentage of the study population potentially changing their mind between intention and final decision; this process should start early and be tailored to the individual's COVID-19 history. A personalized approach seems necessary in order to ensure that individuals make an informed choice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36146562
pii: vaccines10091485
doi: 10.3390/vaccines10091485
pmc: PMC9501467
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Dec 10;9(12):
pubmed: 34960208
mBio. 2021 Dec 21;12(6):e0265621
pubmed: 34872349
Lancet. 2022 Mar 5;399(10328):924-944
pubmed: 35202601
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Jan 19;10(2):
pubmed: 35214605
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 7;13(12):e0208601
pubmed: 30532274
N Engl J Med. 2022 Apr 21;386(16):1532-1546
pubmed: 35249272
Front Public Health. 2022 Apr 07;10:846861
pubmed: 35462827
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Oct 10;9(10):
pubmed: 34696266
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022 Mar;14:100317
pubmed: 35132400
J Med Virol. 2022 Jul;94(7):2969-2976
pubmed: 35246846
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Dec 02;9(12):
pubmed: 34960170
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Nov 05;9(11):
pubmed: 34835217
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Mar 09;10(3):
pubmed: 35335042
BMC Fam Pract. 2006 Mar 24;7:21
pubmed: 16563164
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Dec 06;9(12):
pubmed: 34960183
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 23;17(3):e0265496
pubmed: 35320309
Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Mar 26;10(4):
pubmed: 35455264
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4165-75
pubmed: 25896384
BMJ Open. 2022 Jan 25;12(1):e055721
pubmed: 35078848
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Nov 19;9(11):
pubmed: 34835289
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Nov 08;9(11):
pubmed: 34835226