阿拉斯加州的疫苗安全理念

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
R. David Parker , Jennifer A. Meyer
{"title":"阿拉斯加州的疫苗安全理念","authors":"R. David Parker ,&nbsp;Jennifer A. Meyer","doi":"10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Identifying the key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge as has been highlighted throughout the COVID-19 vaccine roll out and pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics associated with vaccine safety and compare perceived safety by vaccine. Our hypothesis is that vaccine safety perception will vary by vaccine with COVID-19 as ranked lowest for safety.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Cross sectional.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A statewide sample (n = 1024) responded to an online 28-point questionnaire via anonymous linked invitation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the eight vaccines assessed, COVID-19 had the lowest perceived safety (53.13%) followed by human papillomavirus HPV (63.38%). A binomial logistic regression assessed COVID-19 vaccine safety beliefs (safe v not safe) finding age, political orientation, and perceived safety of certain vaccines as statistically significant. As age increased by year, vaccine safety beliefs increased. Persons who identified as conservative demonstrated less belief in vaccine safety than all other groups. Among persons who did not perceive the COVID-19 vaccine as safe, 65.8% believed chicken pox was safe, 63.3% and 61.1% perceived hepatitis A&amp; B were safe.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These findings demonstrate that vaccine safety beliefs differ by vaccine and that persons who do not believe in the safety of the COVID-19 are not exclusively against all vaccines. Understanding factors that increase vaccine safety by vaccine could assist in developing an intervention which could increase belief in safety for all vaccines.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34141,"journal":{"name":"Public Health in Practice","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100482"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000193/pdfft?md5=8533104b22f7c621880efcbe70fa1329&pid=1-s2.0-S2666535224000193-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vaccine safety beliefs in the state of Alaska\",\"authors\":\"R. David Parker ,&nbsp;Jennifer A. Meyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Identifying the key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge as has been highlighted throughout the COVID-19 vaccine roll out and pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics associated with vaccine safety and compare perceived safety by vaccine. Our hypothesis is that vaccine safety perception will vary by vaccine with COVID-19 as ranked lowest for safety.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Cross sectional.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A statewide sample (n = 1024) responded to an online 28-point questionnaire via anonymous linked invitation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among the eight vaccines assessed, COVID-19 had the lowest perceived safety (53.13%) followed by human papillomavirus HPV (63.38%). A binomial logistic regression assessed COVID-19 vaccine safety beliefs (safe v not safe) finding age, political orientation, and perceived safety of certain vaccines as statistically significant. As age increased by year, vaccine safety beliefs increased. Persons who identified as conservative demonstrated less belief in vaccine safety than all other groups. Among persons who did not perceive the COVID-19 vaccine as safe, 65.8% believed chicken pox was safe, 63.3% and 61.1% perceived hepatitis A&amp; B were safe.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>These findings demonstrate that vaccine safety beliefs differ by vaccine and that persons who do not believe in the safety of the COVID-19 are not exclusively against all vaccines. Understanding factors that increase vaccine safety by vaccine could assist in developing an intervention which could increase belief in safety for all vaccines.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34141,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health in Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100482\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000193/pdfft?md5=8533104b22f7c621880efcbe70fa1329&pid=1-s2.0-S2666535224000193-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health in Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000193\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health in Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535224000193","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的确定与疫苗犹豫相关的关键因素仍然是一项挑战,这一点在 COVID-19 疫苗的推广和大流行过程中得到了强调。本研究旨在确定与疫苗安全性相关的特征,并比较不同疫苗的安全性认知。我们的假设是,不同疫苗的安全性感知会有所不同,而 COVID-19 的安全性感知最低。研究设计横断面研究方法全州样本(n = 1024)通过匿名链接邀请对 28 点在线问卷进行了回答。二项逻辑回归评估了 COVID-19 疫苗的安全性信念(安全与不安全),发现年龄、政治倾向和对某些疫苗安全性的认知具有统计学意义。随着年龄逐年增加,疫苗安全信念也随之增加。与所有其他群体相比,被认定为保守派的人对疫苗安全性的信念较低。在认为 COVID-19 疫苗不安全的人群中,65.8% 的人认为水痘是安全的,63.3% 和 61.1% 的人认为甲型肝炎和乙型肝炎是安全的。了解提高不同疫苗安全性的因素有助于制定干预措施,从而提高对所有疫苗安全性的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vaccine safety beliefs in the state of Alaska

Objectives

Identifying the key factors associated with vaccine hesitancy remains a challenge as has been highlighted throughout the COVID-19 vaccine roll out and pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine characteristics associated with vaccine safety and compare perceived safety by vaccine. Our hypothesis is that vaccine safety perception will vary by vaccine with COVID-19 as ranked lowest for safety.

Study design

Cross sectional.

Methods

A statewide sample (n = 1024) responded to an online 28-point questionnaire via anonymous linked invitation.

Results

Among the eight vaccines assessed, COVID-19 had the lowest perceived safety (53.13%) followed by human papillomavirus HPV (63.38%). A binomial logistic regression assessed COVID-19 vaccine safety beliefs (safe v not safe) finding age, political orientation, and perceived safety of certain vaccines as statistically significant. As age increased by year, vaccine safety beliefs increased. Persons who identified as conservative demonstrated less belief in vaccine safety than all other groups. Among persons who did not perceive the COVID-19 vaccine as safe, 65.8% believed chicken pox was safe, 63.3% and 61.1% perceived hepatitis A& B were safe.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate that vaccine safety beliefs differ by vaccine and that persons who do not believe in the safety of the COVID-19 are not exclusively against all vaccines. Understanding factors that increase vaccine safety by vaccine could assist in developing an intervention which could increase belief in safety for all vaccines.

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
Public Health in Practice
Public Health in Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
117
审稿时长
71 days
×
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