Aneta Tomaszewska, Barbara Bałan, Karolina Sobeczek, Kamil Rakocy, Konrad Furmańczyk, Mariola Chrzanowska, Piotr Samel-Kowalik, Filip Raciborski, Bolesław Samoliński
{"title":"影响COVID-19疫苗决策的因素:我们可以期待波兰人未来的态度是什么?横断面的、有代表性的调查","authors":"Aneta Tomaszewska, Barbara Bałan, Karolina Sobeczek, Kamil Rakocy, Konrad Furmańczyk, Mariola Chrzanowska, Piotr Samel-Kowalik, Filip Raciborski, Bolesław Samoliński","doi":"10.13075/ijomeh.1896.02595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to identify factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination decisions and reasons for vaccine refusal among young Poles - a population with the lowest uptake in the country.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted using the computerassisted personal interview method on a representative sample of 1560 individuals aged 15-39 years. The multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between selected factors and COVID-19 vaccination status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The likelihood of vaccination was significantly higher among women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64), individuals aged 25-39 years (OR = 2.47), those with higher education (OR = 4.84), married (OR = 2.18), parents (OR = 2.35) and deeply religious respondents (OR = 4.97). The strongest predictor was fear of COVID-19 infection (OR = 28.14). Among vaccine-hesitant individuals, the most common concerns were vaccine safety (40%) and efficacy (35%). Others perceived COVID-19 as a mild illness (27%), believed prior infection provided sufficient immunity (22%), or preferred natural methods (14%). Vaccination status correlated with attitudes toward vaccines and the pandemic. The strongest positive correlations were with beliefs that vaccination protects others (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.59), COVID-19 vaccines are a medical success (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.51), and that experts promoting vaccines are credible (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.45). Negative correlations were linked to misinformation, such as claims about genetic effects, unethical experimentation, or dangerous ingredients. The reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine cluster into 2 groups: modifiable and non-modifiable. This division assumes that it is possible to intervene to modify some factors, while others are beyond our control.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vaccine hesitancy is shaped not only by lack of knowledge but also by mistrust and social polarization. Therefore, public health strategies should combine educational efforts with communication delivered through trusted channels. Otherwise, polarization may persist - with only part of the hesitant group open to change. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2025;38(4).</p>","PeriodicalId":14173,"journal":{"name":"International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine decision: What attitudes can we expect from young Poles in the future? A cross-sectional, representative survey.\",\"authors\":\"Aneta Tomaszewska, Barbara Bałan, Karolina Sobeczek, Kamil Rakocy, Konrad Furmańczyk, Mariola Chrzanowska, Piotr Samel-Kowalik, Filip Raciborski, Bolesław Samoliński\",\"doi\":\"10.13075/ijomeh.1896.02595\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to identify factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination decisions and reasons for vaccine refusal among young Poles - a population with the lowest uptake in the country.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted using the computerassisted personal interview method on a representative sample of 1560 individuals aged 15-39 years. The multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between selected factors and COVID-19 vaccination status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The likelihood of vaccination was significantly higher among women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64), individuals aged 25-39 years (OR = 2.47), those with higher education (OR = 4.84), married (OR = 2.18), parents (OR = 2.35) and deeply religious respondents (OR = 4.97). The strongest predictor was fear of COVID-19 infection (OR = 28.14). Among vaccine-hesitant individuals, the most common concerns were vaccine safety (40%) and efficacy (35%). Others perceived COVID-19 as a mild illness (27%), believed prior infection provided sufficient immunity (22%), or preferred natural methods (14%). Vaccination status correlated with attitudes toward vaccines and the pandemic. The strongest positive correlations were with beliefs that vaccination protects others (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.59), COVID-19 vaccines are a medical success (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.51), and that experts promoting vaccines are credible (r<sub>s</sub> = 0.45). Negative correlations were linked to misinformation, such as claims about genetic effects, unethical experimentation, or dangerous ingredients. The reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine cluster into 2 groups: modifiable and non-modifiable. This division assumes that it is possible to intervene to modify some factors, while others are beyond our control.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Vaccine hesitancy is shaped not only by lack of knowledge but also by mistrust and social polarization. Therefore, public health strategies should combine educational efforts with communication delivered through trusted channels. Otherwise, polarization may persist - with only part of the hesitant group open to change. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2025;38(4).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14173,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.02595\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.02595","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine decision: What attitudes can we expect from young Poles in the future? A cross-sectional, representative survey.
Objectives: This study aimed to identify factors influencing COVID-19 vaccination decisions and reasons for vaccine refusal among young Poles - a population with the lowest uptake in the country.
Material and methods: A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted using the computerassisted personal interview method on a representative sample of 1560 individuals aged 15-39 years. The multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the relationship between selected factors and COVID-19 vaccination status.
Results: The likelihood of vaccination was significantly higher among women (odds ratio [OR] = 1.64), individuals aged 25-39 years (OR = 2.47), those with higher education (OR = 4.84), married (OR = 2.18), parents (OR = 2.35) and deeply religious respondents (OR = 4.97). The strongest predictor was fear of COVID-19 infection (OR = 28.14). Among vaccine-hesitant individuals, the most common concerns were vaccine safety (40%) and efficacy (35%). Others perceived COVID-19 as a mild illness (27%), believed prior infection provided sufficient immunity (22%), or preferred natural methods (14%). Vaccination status correlated with attitudes toward vaccines and the pandemic. The strongest positive correlations were with beliefs that vaccination protects others (rs = 0.59), COVID-19 vaccines are a medical success (rs = 0.51), and that experts promoting vaccines are credible (rs = 0.45). Negative correlations were linked to misinformation, such as claims about genetic effects, unethical experimentation, or dangerous ingredients. The reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine cluster into 2 groups: modifiable and non-modifiable. This division assumes that it is possible to intervene to modify some factors, while others are beyond our control.
Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy is shaped not only by lack of knowledge but also by mistrust and social polarization. Therefore, public health strategies should combine educational efforts with communication delivered through trusted channels. Otherwise, polarization may persist - with only part of the hesitant group open to change. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2025;38(4).
期刊介绍:
The Journal is dedicated to present the contemporary research in occupational and environmental health from all over the world. It publishes works concerning: occupational and environmental: medicine, epidemiology, hygiene and toxicology; work physiology and ergonomics, musculoskeletal problems; psychosocial factors at work, work-related mental problems, aging, work ability and return to work; working hours, shift work; reproductive factors and endocrine disruptors; radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing health effects; agricultural hazards; work safety and injury and occupational health service; climate change and its effects on health; omics, genetics and epigenetics in occupational and environmental health; health effects of exposure to nanoparticles and nanotechnology products; human biomarkers in occupational and environmental health, intervention studies, clinical sciences’ achievements with potential to improve occupational and environmental health.