Using the precaution adoption process model to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine in England.

Booster vaccination Coronavirus Health belief model Precaution adoption process model Theory of planned behaviour Vaccine hesitancy

Journal

Vaccine
ISSN: 1873-2518
Titre abrégé: Vaccine
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8406899

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 04 2023
Historique:
received: 07 02 2022
revised: 21 12 2022
accepted: 13 02 2023
medline: 4 4 2023
pubmed: 19 3 2023
entrez: 18 3 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

COVID-19 continues to pose a threat to public health. Booster vaccine programmes are critical to maintain population-level immunity. Stage theory models of health behaviour can help our understanding of vaccine decision-making in the context of perceived threats of COVID-19. To use the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine (CBV) in England. An online, cross-sectional survey informed by the PAPM, the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model administered to people over the age of 50 residing in England, UK in October 2021. A multivariate, multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine associations with the different stages of CBV decision-making. Of the total 2,004 participants: 135 (6.7%) were unengaged with the CBV programme; 262 (13.1%) were undecided as to whether to have a CBV; 31 (1.5%) had decided not to have a CBV; 1,415 (70.6%) had decided to have a CBV; and 161 (8.0%) had already had their CBV. Being unengaged was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system to protect against COVID-19, being employed, and low household income; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, and higher academic qualifications. Being undecided was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system and having previously received the Oxford/AstraZeneca (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, positive attitudes regarding CBV, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, white British ethnicity, and living in East Midlands (vs London). Public health interventions promoting CBV may improve uptake through tailored messaging directed towards the specific decision stage relating to having a COVID-19 booster.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
COVID-19 continues to pose a threat to public health. Booster vaccine programmes are critical to maintain population-level immunity. Stage theory models of health behaviour can help our understanding of vaccine decision-making in the context of perceived threats of COVID-19.
PURPOSE
To use the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine (CBV) in England.
METHODS
An online, cross-sectional survey informed by the PAPM, the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model administered to people over the age of 50 residing in England, UK in October 2021. A multivariate, multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine associations with the different stages of CBV decision-making.
RESULTS
Of the total 2,004 participants: 135 (6.7%) were unengaged with the CBV programme; 262 (13.1%) were undecided as to whether to have a CBV; 31 (1.5%) had decided not to have a CBV; 1,415 (70.6%) had decided to have a CBV; and 161 (8.0%) had already had their CBV. Being unengaged was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system to protect against COVID-19, being employed, and low household income; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, and higher academic qualifications. Being undecided was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system and having previously received the Oxford/AstraZeneca (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, positive attitudes regarding CBV, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, white British ethnicity, and living in East Midlands (vs London).
CONCLUSIONS
Public health interventions promoting CBV may improve uptake through tailored messaging directed towards the specific decision stage relating to having a COVID-19 booster.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36933983
pii: S0264-410X(23)00182-2
doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.047
pmc: PMC9935297
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

COVID-19 Vaccines 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2466-2475

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PR-PRU1217-20501
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Falko F Sniehotta reports financial support was provided by National Institute of Health and Medical Research.

Références

BMC Public Health. 2011 Jan 06;11(1):15
pubmed: 21211000
Postgrad Med J. 2022 Jul;98(1161):544-550
pubmed: 34373343
Vaccine. 2020 Sep 29;38(42):6500-6507
pubmed: 32863069
Vaccine. 2021 Oct 8;39(42):6256-6261
pubmed: 34544601
Vaccine. 2015 Aug 14;33(34):4161-4
pubmed: 25896383
BMC Med. 2021 Jul 28;19(1):173
pubmed: 34315454
Vaccine. 2014 Apr 17;32(19):2150-9
pubmed: 24598724
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1625-34
pubmed: 26563249
BMJ. 2021 May 13;373:n1088
pubmed: 33985964
Vaccine. 2019 Oct 16;37(44):6665-6672
pubmed: 31542261
Health Educ Res. 2011 Apr;26(2):192-200
pubmed: 21106651
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 09;9(12):e113503
pubmed: 25490542
Lancet. 2021 May 22;397(10288):1863-1865
pubmed: 33894143
N Engl J Med. 2021 Dec 9;385(24):e85
pubmed: 34706170
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Jul;21(7):939-949
pubmed: 33930320
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Jun 3;17(6):1612-1621
pubmed: 33242386
BMC Public Health. 2021 Apr 26;21(1):804
pubmed: 33902501
Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 16;12:648289
pubmed: 34220620
N Engl J Med. 2021 Dec 9;385(24):e84
pubmed: 34614326
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Oct 01;9(10):
pubmed: 34696228
PLoS One. 2021 Nov 17;16(11):e0259381
pubmed: 34788330
Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Dec 2;17(12):5242-5254
pubmed: 34919492
Vaccine. 2021 May 6;39(19):2636-2642
pubmed: 33846044
BMJ Open. 2021 Oct 28;11(10):e055085
pubmed: 34711602
Math Biosci Eng. 2023 Jan;20(1):179-212
pubmed: 36650762
Vaccine. 2020 Jan 29;38(5):1040-1047
pubmed: 31787415
N Engl J Med. 2021 Oct 7;385(15):1393-1400
pubmed: 34525275
Vaccine. 2017 Oct 13;35(43):5890-5896
pubmed: 28890192
Health Psychol. 1992;11(3):170-80
pubmed: 1618171
Cell. 2022 Feb 3;185(3):457-466.e4
pubmed: 34995482
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Apr 1;5(4):e227038
pubmed: 35420661
Prev Med. 2018 Nov;116:203-210
pubmed: 30267734
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Prev Med. 2009 May;48(5):411-4
pubmed: 18996144
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2022 Oct 3;380(2233):20210311
pubmed: 35965469

Auteurs

Carly Meyer (C)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Health Psychology Research Group, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, UK. Electronic address: carly.meyer@ucl.ac.uk.

Louis Goffe (L)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Vivi Antonopoulou (V)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Health Psychology Research Group, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.

Fiona Graham (F)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Mei Yee Tang (MY)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Jan Lecouturier (J)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Aikaterini Grimani (A)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK.

Paul Chadwick (P)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Health Psychology Research Group, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.

Falko F Sniehotta (FF)

NIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK; Department of Public Health, Preventive and Social Medicine, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health Baden-Wuerttemberg, Heidelberg University, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH