Understanding vaccine hesitancy through the lens of trust and the 3C model: evidence from Chinese General Social Survey 2021.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Frontiers in Public Health Pub Date : 2025-10-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1671457
Bo Dong, Hengxuan Xu, Yuantao Qi, Yifan Li
{"title":"Understanding vaccine hesitancy through the lens of trust and the 3C model: evidence from Chinese General Social Survey 2021.","authors":"Bo Dong, Hengxuan Xu, Yuantao Qi, Yifan Li","doi":"10.3389/fpubh.2025.1671457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Trust is critical in managing infectious disease outbreaks, influencing both healthcare delivery and public compliance. While existing studies suggest trust reduces vaccine hesitancy (VH), the mechanisms remain unclear, particularly how different types of trust impact VH.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study uses data from the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), analyzing responses from 7,907 individuals. VH was assessed via COVID-19 vaccination status. Four trust types-generalized, government, doctor, and internet trust-were examined using binary probit regression. Structural equation modeling analyzed the mediating role of psychological factors: self-confidence, complacency, and responsibility. Robustness checks employed alternative dependent variables and models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Trust exerts a significant negative predictive effect on vaccine hesitancy, suggesting that higher levels reduce the likelihood of vaccine hesitancy. This finding remains statistically significant after robustness tests. However, trust in the government and physician exert a greater influence on vaccine hesitancy than generalized trust and online trust. The three psychological antecedents-confidence, complacency, and collective responsibility-serve a crucial mediating role between trust and vaccine hesitancy. Most vaccinations were community-organized, followed by voluntary and employer-organized vaccination. Higher VH correlated with lower trust across all types, though most hesitancy levels occurred among those with moderate to high trust.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Strengthening trust-especially in government and healthcare providers-is essential to reducing VH. Psychological determinants like confidence, complacency, and responsibility play key roles in vaccination decisions. Tackling VH requires multi-level strategies: fostering public trust, enhancing government transparency, empowering healthcare professionals, combating online misinformation, and leveraging community initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":12548,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Public Health","volume":"13 ","pages":"1671457"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12521134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1671457","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Trust is critical in managing infectious disease outbreaks, influencing both healthcare delivery and public compliance. While existing studies suggest trust reduces vaccine hesitancy (VH), the mechanisms remain unclear, particularly how different types of trust impact VH.

Methods: This study uses data from the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), analyzing responses from 7,907 individuals. VH was assessed via COVID-19 vaccination status. Four trust types-generalized, government, doctor, and internet trust-were examined using binary probit regression. Structural equation modeling analyzed the mediating role of psychological factors: self-confidence, complacency, and responsibility. Robustness checks employed alternative dependent variables and models.

Results: Trust exerts a significant negative predictive effect on vaccine hesitancy, suggesting that higher levels reduce the likelihood of vaccine hesitancy. This finding remains statistically significant after robustness tests. However, trust in the government and physician exert a greater influence on vaccine hesitancy than generalized trust and online trust. The three psychological antecedents-confidence, complacency, and collective responsibility-serve a crucial mediating role between trust and vaccine hesitancy. Most vaccinations were community-organized, followed by voluntary and employer-organized vaccination. Higher VH correlated with lower trust across all types, though most hesitancy levels occurred among those with moderate to high trust.

Conclusion: Strengthening trust-especially in government and healthcare providers-is essential to reducing VH. Psychological determinants like confidence, complacency, and responsibility play key roles in vaccination decisions. Tackling VH requires multi-level strategies: fostering public trust, enhancing government transparency, empowering healthcare professionals, combating online misinformation, and leveraging community initiatives.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

从信任和3C模型的角度理解疫苗犹豫:来自2021年中国综合社会调查的证据
背景:信任在管理传染病暴发中至关重要,影响医疗保健服务和公众合规。虽然现有的研究表明信任可以减少疫苗犹豫(VH),但其机制尚不清楚,特别是不同类型的信任如何影响VH。方法:本研究使用了2021年中国综合社会调查(CGSS)的数据,分析了7907个人的反馈。通过COVID-19疫苗接种情况评估VH。采用二元概率回归对广义信任、政府信任、医生信任和互联网信任四种信任类型进行了检验。结构方程模型分析了自信、自满、责任心理因素的中介作用。鲁棒性检查采用替代因变量和模型。结果:信任对疫苗犹豫具有显著的负向预测作用,表明信任水平越高,疫苗犹豫的可能性越低。这一发现在稳健性检验后仍然具有统计学意义。然而,对政府和医生的信任比一般信任和网络信任对疫苗犹豫的影响更大。信心、自满和集体责任这三种心理前提在信任和疫苗犹豫之间起着至关重要的中介作用。大多数疫苗接种是社区组织的,其次是自愿和雇主组织的疫苗接种。在所有类型中,较高的VH与较低的信任相关,尽管大多数犹豫水平发生在中高信任的人群中。结论:加强信任——尤其是对政府和卫生保健提供者的信任——对减少VH至关重要。信心、自满和责任等心理决定因素在疫苗接种决策中发挥关键作用。解决VH问题需要多层次的战略:培养公众信任、提高政府透明度、增强医疗保健专业人员的能力、打击在线错误信息以及利用社区倡议。
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
Frontiers in Public Health
Frontiers in Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
4469
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Public Health is a multidisciplinary open-access journal which publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research and is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians, policy makers and the public worldwide. The journal aims at overcoming current fragmentation in research and publication, promoting consistency in pursuing relevant scientific themes, and supporting finding dissemination and translation into practice. Frontiers in Public Health is organized into Specialty Sections that cover different areas of research in the field. Please refer to the author guidelines for details on article types and the submission process.
×
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