Vaccine hesitancy relates to vaccine hesitancy? Discovering nonlinear relations between differing operationalizations of vaccine hesitancy

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2025.01.012
Matt C. Howard
{"title":"Vaccine hesitancy relates to vaccine hesitancy? Discovering nonlinear relations between differing operationalizations of vaccine hesitancy","authors":"Matt C. Howard","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2025.01.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Vaccine hesitancy is often conceptualized as negative perceptions regarding vaccines, but recent authors have increasingly argued that the construct should instead be conceptualized as indecision in the vaccination decision-making process. This has caused authors to reevaluate the placement of vaccine hesitancy in associated models and frameworks, and it has caused uncertainty regarding how these two conceptualizations relate to each other. In the current article, we argue that the relation between these two conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy is best understood via nonlinear effects. Specifically, we argue that this relation takes an inverted U-shape.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>We utilized a cross-sectional survey design.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We recruited 273 participants from Prolific who completed two measures of vaccine hesitancy: an eight-dimension measure reflecting negative perceptions of vaccines and a unidimensional measure reflecting indecision in the vaccine decision-making process.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We performed eight quadratic regression analyses (one for each dimension) to assess our proposed nonlinear relation. The quadratic term was significant in all eight regression analyses (all <em>p</em> &lt; .01), supporting our proposed inverted U-shape relation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our results provide reasoning for future authors to test whether vaccine hesitancy as negative perceptions impacts vaccination via vaccine hesitancy as indecision, and researchers must now recognize their nonlinear relation in any developed models and frameworks.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"240 ","pages":"Pages 52-55"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350625000332","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Vaccine hesitancy is often conceptualized as negative perceptions regarding vaccines, but recent authors have increasingly argued that the construct should instead be conceptualized as indecision in the vaccination decision-making process. This has caused authors to reevaluate the placement of vaccine hesitancy in associated models and frameworks, and it has caused uncertainty regarding how these two conceptualizations relate to each other. In the current article, we argue that the relation between these two conceptualizations of vaccine hesitancy is best understood via nonlinear effects. Specifically, we argue that this relation takes an inverted U-shape.

Study design

We utilized a cross-sectional survey design.

Methods

We recruited 273 participants from Prolific who completed two measures of vaccine hesitancy: an eight-dimension measure reflecting negative perceptions of vaccines and a unidimensional measure reflecting indecision in the vaccine decision-making process.

Results

We performed eight quadratic regression analyses (one for each dimension) to assess our proposed nonlinear relation. The quadratic term was significant in all eight regression analyses (all p < .01), supporting our proposed inverted U-shape relation.

Conclusions

Our results provide reasoning for future authors to test whether vaccine hesitancy as negative perceptions impacts vaccination via vaccine hesitancy as indecision, and researchers must now recognize their nonlinear relation in any developed models and frameworks.
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
疫苗犹豫与疫苗犹豫有关?发现疫苗犹豫不同操作方式之间的非线性关系。
目的:疫苗犹豫通常被概念化为对疫苗的负面看法,但最近越来越多的作者认为,这种结构应该被概念化为疫苗接种决策过程中的优柔寡断。这导致作者重新评估疫苗犹豫在相关模型和框架中的位置,并导致这两个概念如何相互关联的不确定性。在当前的文章中,我们认为这两种疫苗犹豫概念之间的关系最好通过非线性效应来理解。具体来说,我们认为这种关系呈倒u形。研究设计:我们采用横断面调查设计。方法:我们从多产地区招募了273名参与者,他们完成了疫苗犹豫的两项测量:一项反映对疫苗的负面看法的八维度测量和一项反映疫苗决策过程中犹豫不决的一维测量。结果:我们进行了八次二次回归分析(每个维度一次)来评估我们提出的非线性关系。在所有8个回归分析中,二次项都是显著的(所有p)结论:我们的结果为未来的作者提供了推理,以检验作为负面认知的疫苗犹豫是否会通过作为犹豫不决的疫苗犹豫影响疫苗接种,研究人员现在必须在任何已开发的模型和框架中认识到它们之间的非线性关系。
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
Public Health
Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of tailored public health messages for vulnerable populations: A randomised controlled trial Comparing the riskiness and determinants of non-adherence to five quarantine and isolation guidelines: A dynamic cohort study during COVID-19 Clinical characteristics and mortality risk factors among 400,509 individuals diagnosed with AIDS in Brazil: A nationwide observational study Exploring acute malnutrition, acute watery diarrhea, dietary diversity, and vaccination coverage among internally displaced children in Yemen: A cross-sectional study The public health approach to violence reduction: A process evaluation of a UK inner-city serious youth violence strategy
×
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:604180095
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