Trust in COVID-19 information sources and vaccination status: Exploring social inequalities and differences within the four United Kingdom nations using a representative survey.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Health Services Research & Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-05 DOI:10.1177/13558196241227749
Valeria Skafida, Elke Heins
{"title":"Trust in COVID-19 information sources and vaccination status: Exploring social inequalities and differences within the four United Kingdom nations using a representative survey.","authors":"Valeria Skafida, Elke Heins","doi":"10.1177/13558196241227749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore how the use of, and trust in, different sources of advice and information on COVID-19 differed across the four UK nations and between different sociodemographic groups and their associations with COVID-19 vaccination status.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a UK-wide representative survey conducted in July 2021, which included data on uptake of COVID-19 vaccination, trust in information sources, use of sources and geographical and sociodemographic variables. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with completed or planned COVID-19 vaccination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Trust in the NHS, followed by trust in scientists, were the strongest predictors of vaccination intention. NHS websites were the most used (56% across the UK); only the Scottish government website had a higher level of reported use (58%). Using either source was associated with a positive vaccination status as were use of the GP and television as sources of advice. Use of social media, family and friends, and 'none' of the sources enquired about, were all linked to a lower likelihood of being or intending to get vaccinated. Compared to those in England, respondents in other UK nations were less likely to trust the central UK government for advice on COVID-19. There was considerable variation by age in trust and use of some, but not all, sources of advice, with predicted probabilities ranging from 35% among the youngest age group to 62% among those aged 65 years or older. There were also significant differences by annual household income and by occupational class for trust in government, with higher incomes correlating with greater likelihood of trust.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates high levels of trust in the key sources of public health advice and there was a positive association between using official sources of advice and vaccination intentions, even in the context of overall high vaccination rates. Our findings highlight the need for the UK and devolved governments to value the importance of public trust in the health system and take appropriate measures to avoid undermining such trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11196867/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196241227749","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To explore how the use of, and trust in, different sources of advice and information on COVID-19 differed across the four UK nations and between different sociodemographic groups and their associations with COVID-19 vaccination status.

Methods: We used a UK-wide representative survey conducted in July 2021, which included data on uptake of COVID-19 vaccination, trust in information sources, use of sources and geographical and sociodemographic variables. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with completed or planned COVID-19 vaccination.

Results: Trust in the NHS, followed by trust in scientists, were the strongest predictors of vaccination intention. NHS websites were the most used (56% across the UK); only the Scottish government website had a higher level of reported use (58%). Using either source was associated with a positive vaccination status as were use of the GP and television as sources of advice. Use of social media, family and friends, and 'none' of the sources enquired about, were all linked to a lower likelihood of being or intending to get vaccinated. Compared to those in England, respondents in other UK nations were less likely to trust the central UK government for advice on COVID-19. There was considerable variation by age in trust and use of some, but not all, sources of advice, with predicted probabilities ranging from 35% among the youngest age group to 62% among those aged 65 years or older. There were also significant differences by annual household income and by occupational class for trust in government, with higher incomes correlating with greater likelihood of trust.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates high levels of trust in the key sources of public health advice and there was a positive association between using official sources of advice and vaccination intentions, even in the context of overall high vaccination rates. Our findings highlight the need for the UK and devolved governments to value the importance of public trust in the health system and take appropriate measures to avoid undermining such trust.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对 COVID-19 信息来源和疫苗接种状况的信任:利用代表性调查探索英国四个国家内部的社会不平等和差异。
目的探讨英国四个国家和不同社会人口群体对有关 COVID-19 的不同建议和信息来源的使用和信任程度有何不同,以及它们与 COVID-19 疫苗接种状况之间的关系:我们使用了 2021 年 7 月进行的一项全英代表性调查,其中包括 COVID-19 疫苗接种率、对信息来源的信任度、信息来源的使用以及地理和社会人口变量的数据。我们使用多变量逻辑回归来确定与完成或计划接种 COVID-19 疫苗相关的因素:结果:对国家医疗服务体系的信任和对科学家的信任是预测疫苗接种意向的最有力因素。英国国家医疗服务体系网站的使用率最高(全英国为 56%);只有苏格兰政府网站的报告使用率较高(58%)。使用其中任何一个来源都与积极的疫苗接种状态有关,使用全科医生和电视作为建议来源也与积极的疫苗接种状态有关。使用社交媒体、家人和朋友,以及 "没有 "所询问的信息来源,都与正在或打算接种疫苗的可能性较低有关。与英格兰的受访者相比,英国其他国家的受访者不太可能信任英国中央政府提供的有关 COVID-19 的建议。不同年龄段的受访者在信任和使用某些(而非所有)建议来源方面存在很大差异,预测概率从最年轻年龄组的 35% 到 65 岁或以上年龄组的 62% 不等。在对政府的信任度方面,家庭年收入和职业等级也存在明显差异,收入越高,信任度越高:本研究表明,人们对公共卫生建议的主要来源高度信任,即使在疫苗接种率总体较高的情况下,使用官方建议来源与疫苗接种意愿之间也存在正相关。我们的研究结果突出表明,英国和地方政府需要重视公众对卫生系统信任的重要性,并采取适当措施避免破坏这种信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
期刊最新文献
Rapid evidence assessment of student-assisted assessment and brief intervention clinics: Addressing the gaps in rural and remote health care. University students' access to mental health services: A qualitative study of the experiences of health service professionals through the lens of candidacy in England. Does income matter for the policy effect of public long-term care insurance on informal care use in China? A quasi-experimental study. Health-related inequalities in out-of-pocket expenditure under universal health coverage in Taiwan: A cross-sectional decomposition analysis. Identifying potentially low value surgical care: A national ecological study in England.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1