Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1155/2024/7449501
Karina Badura-Brzoza, Patryk Główczyński, Paweł Dębski, Zenon Brzoza
{"title":"Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination","authors":"Karina Badura-Brzoza,&nbsp;Patryk Główczyński,&nbsp;Paweł Dębski,&nbsp;Zenon Brzoza","doi":"10.1155/2024/7449501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Objective</i>. The aim of the study was to assess some psychological factors that may be related to the attitude towards vaccination against COVID-19. <i>Methods</i>. The study involved 419 responders, including 317 people aged 36.10 ± 13.41 years who received vaccination against COVID-19 and 102 people aged 38.16 ± 12.33 years who decided not to be vaccinated. The study was conducted online in January-June 2022 in the Polish population. The following methods were used for the study: the generic conspiracist beliefs scale (GCBS), the perceived stress scale (PSS-10), and the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI-X2). <i>Results</i>. In the conspiracy beliefs questionnaire, an average score of 34.41 ± 12.95 points was obtained in the vaccinated group and in the unvaccinated group 48.67 ± 13.62 points. The difference was statistically significant (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.01). In the PSS-10 questionnaire, the vaccinated respondents obtained an average score of 19.55 ± 6.75 points, and in the unvaccinated group, the mean score was 18.44 ± 7 points. When comparing the two groups, no statistically significant differences were found. In the vaccinated group, the mean score was 46.96 ± 7.69 points in the state anxiety questionnaire (X2), and 45.85 ± 8.18 points in the unvaccinated group. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups. Significant positive correlations were found in the results obtained in the conspiracy thinking scale (GCBS), the PSS-10 stress scale, and the anxiety scale as a personality trait (STAI-X2) in both study groups. <i>Conclusions</i>. People presenting conspiracy thinking may be more likely to show antivaccine attitudes compared to people not showing a tendency to this kind of thinking. Conspiracy thinking may not only be associated with a high level of anxiety as a personality trait but also with the level of experienced stress. In the group of unvaccinated people, stress was a significant predictor of conspiratorial thinking. In the group of vaccinated people, anxiety turned out to be a significant predictor of conspiracy thinking. Due to the presence of antivaccine groups, the task of the medical personnel is to educate the public. Moreover, extensive information campaigns are needed to promote vaccination safety in an accessible and understandable language.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/7449501","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/7449501","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective. The aim of the study was to assess some psychological factors that may be related to the attitude towards vaccination against COVID-19. Methods. The study involved 419 responders, including 317 people aged 36.10 ± 13.41 years who received vaccination against COVID-19 and 102 people aged 38.16 ± 12.33 years who decided not to be vaccinated. The study was conducted online in January-June 2022 in the Polish population. The following methods were used for the study: the generic conspiracist beliefs scale (GCBS), the perceived stress scale (PSS-10), and the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI-X2). Results. In the conspiracy beliefs questionnaire, an average score of 34.41 ± 12.95 points was obtained in the vaccinated group and in the unvaccinated group 48.67 ± 13.62 points. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). In the PSS-10 questionnaire, the vaccinated respondents obtained an average score of 19.55 ± 6.75 points, and in the unvaccinated group, the mean score was 18.44 ± 7 points. When comparing the two groups, no statistically significant differences were found. In the vaccinated group, the mean score was 46.96 ± 7.69 points in the state anxiety questionnaire (X2), and 45.85 ± 8.18 points in the unvaccinated group. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups. Significant positive correlations were found in the results obtained in the conspiracy thinking scale (GCBS), the PSS-10 stress scale, and the anxiety scale as a personality trait (STAI-X2) in both study groups. Conclusions. People presenting conspiracy thinking may be more likely to show antivaccine attitudes compared to people not showing a tendency to this kind of thinking. Conspiracy thinking may not only be associated with a high level of anxiety as a personality trait but also with the level of experienced stress. In the group of unvaccinated people, stress was a significant predictor of conspiratorial thinking. In the group of vaccinated people, anxiety turned out to be a significant predictor of conspiracy thinking. Due to the presence of antivaccine groups, the task of the medical personnel is to educate the public. Moreover, extensive information campaigns are needed to promote vaccination safety in an accessible and understandable language.

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
为什么有些人不愿意接种 COVID-19 疫苗?与疫苗接种决定有关的一些心理因素分析
研究目的本研究旨在评估可能与接种 COVID-19 疫苗的态度有关的一些心理因素。研究方法。研究涉及 419 名应答者,其中 317 人(36.10 ± 13.41 岁)接种了 COVID-19 疫苗,102 人(38.16 ± 12.33 岁)决定不接种疫苗。该研究于 2022 年 1 月至 6 月在波兰人群中在线进行。研究采用了以下方法:通用阴谋论信念量表(GCBS)、感知压力量表(PSS-10)和状态-特质焦虑量表(STAI-X2)。研究结果在阴谋论信念问卷中,接种疫苗组的平均得分为(34.41 ± 12.95)分,未接种疫苗组的平均得分为(48.67 ± 13.62)分。差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。在 PSS-10 问卷中,接种疫苗的受访者平均得分为(19.55 ± 6.75)分,而未接种疫苗组的平均得分为(18.44 ± 7)分。比较两组受访者的得分,没有发现明显的统计学差异。接种疫苗组的状态焦虑问卷(X2)平均得分为(46.96 ± 7.69)分,未接种疫苗组为(45.85 ± 8.18)分。研究组之间在统计学上没有明显差异。两个研究组的阴谋论思维量表(GCBS)、PSS-10 压力表和作为人格特质的焦虑量表(STAI-X2)的结果均呈显著正相关。结论与没有这种思维倾向的人相比,有阴谋思维的人更有可能表现出反疫苗态度。阴谋论思维不仅可能与作为人格特质的高焦虑水平有关,还可能与经历的压力水平有关。在未接种疫苗的人群中,压力是阴谋论思维的重要预测因素。而在接种疫苗的人群中,焦虑则是阴谋论思维的重要预测因素。由于反疫苗团体的存在,医务人员的任务是教育公众。此外,还需要开展广泛的宣传活动,以通俗易懂的语言宣传疫苗接种的安全性。
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
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
274
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
A Cross-Sectional Study on Nurse-Parent Partnership in the Pediatric Intensive Care Units Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy Reduces Pain and Improves Internal Rotation after Arthroscopic Capsular Release: A Randomized Clinical Trial Why Some People Did Not Want to be Vaccinated against COVID-19? Analysis of Some Psychological Factors Connected with a Decision about Vaccination Predicting the Risk of Fundus Lesions in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Nomogram Model Health Experts’ Perspectives on Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs for Improvement of Hospital Care in the Dying Phase
×
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