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, Patryk Główczyński, Paweł Dębski, 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> < 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":"2024 1","pages":""},"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.
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.