Association of the belief in conspiracy narratives with vaccination status and recommendation behaviours of German physicians

IF 2.7 Q3 IMMUNOLOGY
Frederike Taubert , Philipp Schmid , Dawn Holford , Pierre Verger , Angelo Fasce , Linda C. Karlsson , Anna Soveri , Stephan Lewandowsky , Cornelia Betsch
{"title":"Association of the belief in conspiracy narratives with vaccination status and recommendation behaviours of German physicians","authors":"Frederike Taubert ,&nbsp;Philipp Schmid ,&nbsp;Dawn Holford ,&nbsp;Pierre Verger ,&nbsp;Angelo Fasce ,&nbsp;Linda C. Karlsson ,&nbsp;Anna Soveri ,&nbsp;Stephan Lewandowsky ,&nbsp;Cornelia Betsch","doi":"10.1016/j.jvacx.2024.100560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top ten threats to global health by the World Health Organization (WHO). The belief in conspiracy narratives is repeatedly discussed as a major driver of vaccine hesitancy among the general population. However, there is a lack of research investigating the role of the belief in conspiracy narratives in vaccination decisions and recommendation behaviours of physicians. This is particularly relevant as physicians are one of the major and trusted sources of information for patients’ vaccination decisions. This study therefore investigated the association between believing in COVID-19-related conspiracy narratives and physicians’ own COVID-19 vaccination status and their recommendation behavior for COVID-19 and other vaccines (e.g., HPV or flu). In a cross-sectional survey among German physicians (N = 602, April 2022) two conspiracy narratives were assessed, stating that the coronavirus is a hoax or that it is human-made. Additional control variables included trust in health institutions, the rejection of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) and demographic variables. Hierarchical regressions indicated that greater belief in the conspiracy narrative claiming that the coronavirus is a hoax was associated with lower COVID-19 vaccination uptake and fewer COVID-19 vaccination recommendations among physicians. The results for recommendation behavior remain robust even when controlling for other variables. Contrary to our assumption, believing that the coronavirus is human-made was not related to vaccination status nor vaccine recommendation behavior. In conclusion, believing in conspiracy narratives that question the existence and thus also the danger of the virus is an important independent predictor of vaccine hesitancy among physicians that should be addressed in future public health interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":43021,"journal":{"name":"Vaccine: X","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100560"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vaccine: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590136224001335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top ten threats to global health by the World Health Organization (WHO). The belief in conspiracy narratives is repeatedly discussed as a major driver of vaccine hesitancy among the general population. However, there is a lack of research investigating the role of the belief in conspiracy narratives in vaccination decisions and recommendation behaviours of physicians. This is particularly relevant as physicians are one of the major and trusted sources of information for patients’ vaccination decisions. This study therefore investigated the association between believing in COVID-19-related conspiracy narratives and physicians’ own COVID-19 vaccination status and their recommendation behavior for COVID-19 and other vaccines (e.g., HPV or flu). In a cross-sectional survey among German physicians (N = 602, April 2022) two conspiracy narratives were assessed, stating that the coronavirus is a hoax or that it is human-made. Additional control variables included trust in health institutions, the rejection of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) and demographic variables. Hierarchical regressions indicated that greater belief in the conspiracy narrative claiming that the coronavirus is a hoax was associated with lower COVID-19 vaccination uptake and fewer COVID-19 vaccination recommendations among physicians. The results for recommendation behavior remain robust even when controlling for other variables. Contrary to our assumption, believing that the coronavirus is human-made was not related to vaccination status nor vaccine recommendation behavior. In conclusion, believing in conspiracy narratives that question the existence and thus also the danger of the virus is an important independent predictor of vaccine hesitancy among physicians that should be addressed in future public health interventions.
德国医生对阴谋论的信仰与疫苗接种状况和推荐行为的关系
疫苗接种犹豫已被世界卫生组织(WHO)确定为全球健康的十大威胁之一。对阴谋论的信仰被反复讨论,认为是导致普通人群对疫苗犹豫不决的主要原因。然而,目前还缺乏对阴谋论信念在医生的疫苗接种决定和推荐行为中所起作用的研究。这一点尤为重要,因为医生是患者做出疫苗接种决定的主要和可信赖的信息来源之一。因此,本研究调查了相信与 COVID-19 相关的阴谋论与医生自身的 COVID-19 疫苗接种情况及其对 COVID-19 和其他疫苗(如 HPV 或流感疫苗)的推荐行为之间的关联。在一项针对德国医生的横断面调查(N = 602,2022 年 4 月)中,对两种阴谋论进行了评估,即冠状病毒是一个骗局或它是人为的。其他控制变量包括对医疗机构的信任、对补充和替代医学(CAM)的排斥、接种疫苗的 5C 心理前因(信心、自满、约束、计算和集体责任)以及人口统计学变量。分层回归结果表明,医生更相信冠状病毒是骗局的阴谋论说法与较低的 COVID-19 疫苗接种率和较少的 COVID-19 疫苗接种建议有关。即使控制了其他变量,推荐行为的结果仍然是稳健的。与我们的假设相反,相信冠状病毒是人为的与疫苗接种状况和疫苗推荐行为无关。总之,相信怀疑病毒存在并因此怀疑其危险性的阴谋论是医生对疫苗犹豫不决的一个重要的独立预测因素,在未来的公共卫生干预措施中应该加以解决。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Vaccine: X
Vaccine: X Multiple-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
102
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信