利用行为理论理解 COVID-19 疫苗接种和加强接种意向的党派差异。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Behavioral Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-02 DOI:10.1007/s10865-023-00445-3
Gregory Pavela, Tamika Smith, Victoria McDonald, Leah Bryan, Robin Riddle
{"title":"利用行为理论理解 COVID-19 疫苗接种和加强接种意向的党派差异。","authors":"Gregory Pavela, Tamika Smith, Victoria McDonald, Leah Bryan, Robin Riddle","doi":"10.1007/s10865-023-00445-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for two COVID-19 vaccines. Two years later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that more than 250 million individuals had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Despite the large numbers of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19, partisan differences surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine emerged, creating a potential challenge for health communications aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. A better understanding of partisan differences in attitudes and intentions towards vaccination may help guide public health strategies aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. To determine whether a commonly used theory of behavioral intentions used to craft public health messages explains partisan differences in intentions. Data were drawn from a national panel of US adults and collected between February 21, 2022, and March 3, 2022, using an online survey (n = 1845). Among respondents identifying as either Democrat or Republican (n = 1466), path analysis models were estimated to test whether partisan differences in vaccination or booster intentions were explained by the theoretical constructs of protection motivation theory (PMT). PMT accounted for approximately half of the covariate-adjusted mean difference in COVID-19 vaccination intentions between Democrats and Republicans, and nearly all the mean difference in booster intentions. Party affiliation indirectly affected intentions via its association with perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, vaccine/booster efficacy, and perceived costs of getting a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose. Compared with Democrats, Republicans may be less likely to get vaccinated or receive a booster dose because of beliefs that they are less susceptible to COVID-19, that the vaccine is less effective, and that vaccination comes with disadvantages. Theories of behavioral intentions can help to identify the underlying theoretical determinants driving behavioral differences between political groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":48329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"169-183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using behavioral theory to understand partisan differences in COVID-19 vaccination and booster intentions.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory Pavela, Tamika Smith, Victoria McDonald, Leah Bryan, Robin Riddle\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10865-023-00445-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for two COVID-19 vaccines. Two years later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that more than 250 million individuals had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Despite the large numbers of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19, partisan differences surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine emerged, creating a potential challenge for health communications aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. A better understanding of partisan differences in attitudes and intentions towards vaccination may help guide public health strategies aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. To determine whether a commonly used theory of behavioral intentions used to craft public health messages explains partisan differences in intentions. Data were drawn from a national panel of US adults and collected between February 21, 2022, and March 3, 2022, using an online survey (n = 1845). Among respondents identifying as either Democrat or Republican (n = 1466), path analysis models were estimated to test whether partisan differences in vaccination or booster intentions were explained by the theoretical constructs of protection motivation theory (PMT). PMT accounted for approximately half of the covariate-adjusted mean difference in COVID-19 vaccination intentions between Democrats and Republicans, and nearly all the mean difference in booster intentions. Party affiliation indirectly affected intentions via its association with perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, vaccine/booster efficacy, and perceived costs of getting a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose. Compared with Democrats, Republicans may be less likely to get vaccinated or receive a booster dose because of beliefs that they are less susceptible to COVID-19, that the vaccine is less effective, and that vaccination comes with disadvantages. Theories of behavioral intentions can help to identify the underlying theoretical determinants driving behavioral differences between political groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"169-183\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-023-00445-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-023-00445-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020 年,美国食品和药物管理局批准紧急使用两种 COVID-19 疫苗。两年后,据美国疾病控制与预防中心估计,已有超过 2.5 亿人接种了至少一剂疫苗。尽管接种 COVID-19 疫苗的人数众多,但围绕 COVID-19 疫苗出现了党派分歧,这给旨在提高疫苗接种率的健康传播带来了潜在挑战。更好地了解党派对疫苗接种态度和意向的差异,有助于指导旨在提高疫苗接种率的公共卫生策略。目的是确定用于制作公共卫生信息的常用行为意向理论能否解释意向中的党派差异。数据来自一个美国成年人全国面板,收集时间为 2022 年 2 月 21 日至 2022 年 3 月 3 日,采用在线调查(n = 1845)。在认定为民主党或共和党的受访者中(n = 1466),我们估算了路径分析模型,以检验疫苗接种或加强接种意向的党派差异是否可以用保护动机理论(PMT)的理论构造来解释。经协方差调整后,民主党人和共和党人在 COVID-19 疫苗接种意向上的平均差异约有一半由保护动机理论解释,而在加强接种意向上的平均差异则几乎全部由保护动机理论解释。党派通过与 COVID-19 的感知易感性、疫苗/加强剂效力以及接种 COVID-19 疫苗或加强剂的感知成本相关联,间接影响了接种意愿。与民主党人相比,共和党人可能不太可能接种疫苗或接受强化剂,因为他们认为自己对 COVID-19 的易感性较低、疫苗的效果较差以及接种疫苗会带来不利。行为意向理论有助于确定政治群体间行为差异的基本理论决定因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Using behavioral theory to understand partisan differences in COVID-19 vaccination and booster intentions.

In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization for two COVID-19 vaccines. Two years later, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that more than 250 million individuals had received at least one dose of the vaccine. Despite the large numbers of individuals vaccinated against COVID-19, partisan differences surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine emerged, creating a potential challenge for health communications aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. A better understanding of partisan differences in attitudes and intentions towards vaccination may help guide public health strategies aimed at increasing vaccine uptake. To determine whether a commonly used theory of behavioral intentions used to craft public health messages explains partisan differences in intentions. Data were drawn from a national panel of US adults and collected between February 21, 2022, and March 3, 2022, using an online survey (n = 1845). Among respondents identifying as either Democrat or Republican (n = 1466), path analysis models were estimated to test whether partisan differences in vaccination or booster intentions were explained by the theoretical constructs of protection motivation theory (PMT). PMT accounted for approximately half of the covariate-adjusted mean difference in COVID-19 vaccination intentions between Democrats and Republicans, and nearly all the mean difference in booster intentions. Party affiliation indirectly affected intentions via its association with perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, vaccine/booster efficacy, and perceived costs of getting a COVID-19 vaccine or booster dose. Compared with Democrats, Republicans may be less likely to get vaccinated or receive a booster dose because of beliefs that they are less susceptible to COVID-19, that the vaccine is less effective, and that vaccination comes with disadvantages. Theories of behavioral intentions can help to identify the underlying theoretical determinants driving behavioral differences between political groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Journal of Behavioral Medicine PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Medicine is a broadly conceived interdisciplinary publication devoted to furthering understanding of physical health and illness through the knowledge, methods, and techniques of behavioral science. A significant function of the journal is the application of this knowledge to prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation and to the promotion of health at the individual, community, and population levels.The content of the journal spans all areas of basic and applied behavioral medicine research, conducted in and informed by all related disciplines including but not limited to: psychology, medicine, the public health sciences, sociology, anthropology, health economics, nursing, and biostatistics. Topics welcomed include but are not limited to: prevention of disease and health promotion; the effects of psychological stress on physical and psychological functioning; sociocultural influences on health and illness; adherence to medical regimens; the study of health related behaviors including tobacco use, substance use, sexual behavior, physical activity, and obesity; health services research; and behavioral factors in the prevention and treatment of somatic disorders.  Reports of interdisciplinary approaches to research are particularly welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Cyclic sighing in the clinic waiting room may decrease pain: results from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Anxiety moderates the association between severity of food insecurity and sleep duration among young adults in food-insecure households. Progress on theory of planned behavior research: advances in research synthesis and agenda for future research. Proof-of-concept for integrating multimodal digital health assessments into lifestyle interventions for older adults with dementia risk factors. Psychometric evaluation of Liking and Wanting implicit association tests for physical activity and recreational screen use.
×
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