Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Epistemic Antecedents: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Health Communication Pub Date : 2024-11-25 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2024.2431165
Emily A Andrews, Nathan Walter, Yotam Ophir, Dror Walter, Christiana L Robbins
{"title":"Vaccine Hesitancy and Its Epistemic Antecedents: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Emily A Andrews, Nathan Walter, Yotam Ophir, Dror Walter, Christiana L Robbins","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2024.2431165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although much attention has been given to vaccine hesitancy, there is still considerable ambiguity regarding its epistemological antecedents. The current meta-analysis addresses this theoretical and practical gap by focusing on the interplay between trust, belief in conspiracy theories, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (<i>k</i> = 32), as well as key moderators such as the availability of the vaccine and the state and progress of the pandemic. Overall, results indicate that while both trust and beliefs in conspiracy theories are important correlates of vaccine hesitancy, considerable difference emerges when adopting a more granular approach that distinguishes between types of trust (government, public health organizations, science, and healthcare professionals/providers) and conspiracies (specific versus general). These findings cement the importance of health communication, not only as a useful framework to study and understand vaccine hesitancy but also as a potential way to intervene in order to prepare for future infectious disease outbreaks.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2431165","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although much attention has been given to vaccine hesitancy, there is still considerable ambiguity regarding its epistemological antecedents. The current meta-analysis addresses this theoretical and practical gap by focusing on the interplay between trust, belief in conspiracy theories, and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (k = 32), as well as key moderators such as the availability of the vaccine and the state and progress of the pandemic. Overall, results indicate that while both trust and beliefs in conspiracy theories are important correlates of vaccine hesitancy, considerable difference emerges when adopting a more granular approach that distinguishes between types of trust (government, public health organizations, science, and healthcare professionals/providers) and conspiracies (specific versus general). These findings cement the importance of health communication, not only as a useful framework to study and understand vaccine hesitancy but also as a potential way to intervene in order to prepare for future infectious disease outbreaks.

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
疫苗犹豫不决及其认识前因:元分析。
尽管人们对疫苗犹豫不决问题给予了极大关注,但对其认识论前因仍有相当模糊的认识。当前的荟萃分析通过关注信任、对阴谋论的信仰和 COVID-19 疫苗犹豫不决(k = 32)之间的相互作用,以及疫苗的可用性和大流行病的状态和进展等关键调节因素,解决了这一理论和实践上的空白。总之,研究结果表明,虽然信任和对阴谋论的信仰都是疫苗犹豫不决的重要相关因素,但如果采用一种更细化的方法来区分信任的类型(政府、公共卫生组织、科学和医疗保健专业人员/提供者)和阴谋(特定与一般),则会出现相当大的差异。这些发现巩固了健康传播的重要性,它不仅是研究和理解疫苗犹豫不决的有用框架,也是干预未来传染病爆发的潜在方法。
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
8.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.
期刊最新文献
"Feeling the Pain of Others": Examining the Framing Effects of Cancer Metaphors on Media Vicarious Traumatization. A Longitudinal Interview Study of People with Long COVID: Uncertainties, Liminality, and Processes of Becoming. Exploring the Cognitive, Affective, and Conative Factors of Bystander Intervention to Improve Protective Measures During Health Emergencies. Disseminating Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder Information on TikTok: A Content Analysis. Does Character-Audience Matching Increase the Persuasive Impact of Anti-Sugar-Sweetened-Beverage (SSB) Consumption Messages?
×
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