Unpacking COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Network Analysis Perspective on Related Beliefs and Responses.

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Evangelos Karademas, Antonia Paschali
{"title":"Unpacking COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Network Analysis Perspective on Related Beliefs and Responses.","authors":"Evangelos Karademas, Antonia Paschali","doi":"10.1007/s12529-025-10378-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccination effectively prevents severe infection, many people hesitate to get vaccinated. Psychological factors contributing to vaccination hesitancy include beliefs about vaccine safety and effectiveness, perceived severity of infection, mistrust in authorities, misinformation and conspiracy beliefs, and pandemic-related distress and coping. This cross-sectional study, conducted in Greece, explored the relationships between vaccination and pandemic-related beliefs and responses and examined whether these relationships differed between vaccinated individuals and those hesitating or unwilling to vaccinate.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study was conducted one year after the coronavirus vaccine was available for the entire population and the Omicron variant started to spread. The sample included 520 participants (358 females; mean age = 38.33 years). Network analysis was used to map the connections between the variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings revealed that people less concerned about infection severity and less confident in vaccine effectiveness were more likely to avoid vaccination. Notably, the network structure differed significantly between the two groups. Vaccinated participants exhibited a dense network of interconnected beliefs and responses, with vaccine safety, trust in authorities, worry regarding the pandemic or infection, and a positive outlook playing central roles. In contrast, the hesitant group displayed fewer connections, with vaccine safety and effectiveness beliefs linked primarily to trust in authorities and misinformation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These differences suggest that vaccinated individuals process pandemic and vaccine-related information more comprehensively, while hesitancy may stem from limited integration of related beliefs.</p>","PeriodicalId":54208,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-025-10378-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although SARS-CoV-2 vaccination effectively prevents severe infection, many people hesitate to get vaccinated. Psychological factors contributing to vaccination hesitancy include beliefs about vaccine safety and effectiveness, perceived severity of infection, mistrust in authorities, misinformation and conspiracy beliefs, and pandemic-related distress and coping. This cross-sectional study, conducted in Greece, explored the relationships between vaccination and pandemic-related beliefs and responses and examined whether these relationships differed between vaccinated individuals and those hesitating or unwilling to vaccinate.

Method: The study was conducted one year after the coronavirus vaccine was available for the entire population and the Omicron variant started to spread. The sample included 520 participants (358 females; mean age = 38.33 years). Network analysis was used to map the connections between the variables.

Results: Findings revealed that people less concerned about infection severity and less confident in vaccine effectiveness were more likely to avoid vaccination. Notably, the network structure differed significantly between the two groups. Vaccinated participants exhibited a dense network of interconnected beliefs and responses, with vaccine safety, trust in authorities, worry regarding the pandemic or infection, and a positive outlook playing central roles. In contrast, the hesitant group displayed fewer connections, with vaccine safety and effectiveness beliefs linked primarily to trust in authorities and misinformation.

Conclusions: These differences suggest that vaccinated individuals process pandemic and vaccine-related information more comprehensively, while hesitancy may stem from limited integration of related beliefs.

解读COVID-19疫苗犹豫:相关信念和反应的网络分析视角
背景:虽然SARS-CoV-2疫苗可以有效预防严重感染,但许多人对接种疫苗犹豫不决。导致疫苗接种犹豫不决的心理因素包括对疫苗安全性和有效性的信念、对感染严重程度的认知、对当局的不信任、错误信息和阴谋信念以及与大流行有关的痛苦和应对。这项在希腊进行的横断面研究探讨了疫苗接种与大流行相关的信念和反应之间的关系,并检查了接种疫苗的个体与犹豫不决或不愿接种疫苗的个体之间的关系是否不同。方法:本研究是在冠状病毒疫苗适用于全人群、欧米克隆变异开始传播一年后进行的。样本包括520名参与者(358名女性;平均年龄38.33岁)。网络分析用于映射变量之间的联系。结果:研究结果显示,不太关心感染严重程度和对疫苗有效性缺乏信心的人更有可能避免接种疫苗。值得注意的是,两组之间的网络结构存在显著差异。接种疫苗的参与者表现出密集的相互关联的信念和反应网络,其中疫苗安全性、对当局的信任、对大流行或感染的担忧以及积极的前景发挥着核心作用。相比之下,犹豫组表现出较少的联系,疫苗安全性和有效性的信念主要与对当局的信任和错误信息有关。结论:这些差异表明,接种疫苗的个体更全面地处理大流行和疫苗相关信息,而犹豫可能源于相关信念的有限整合。
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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (IJBM) is the official scientific journal of the International Society for Behavioral Medicine (ISBM). IJBM seeks to present the best theoretically-driven, evidence-based work in the field of behavioral medicine from around the globe. IJBM embraces multiple theoretical perspectives, research methodologies, groups of interest, and levels of analysis. The journal is interested in research across the broad spectrum of behavioral medicine, including health-behavior relationships, the prevention of illness and the promotion of health, the effects of illness on the self and others, the effectiveness of novel interventions, identification of biobehavioral mechanisms, and the influence of social factors on health. We welcome experimental, non-experimental, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies as well as implementation and dissemination research, integrative reviews, and meta-analyses.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信