Beyond confidence

Development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination

Datos Bibliográficos

ID23337992
AutoresCornelia Betsch (0000-0002-2856-7303, University of Erfurt, autor de correspondencia), Peter Schmid (0000-0003-2966-0806, University of Erfurt), Dorothee Heinemeier (0000-0003-1384-1901, University of Erfurt), Lars Korn (0000-0001-6544-3839, University of Erfurt), Cindy Holtmann (University of Erfurt), Robert Böhm (0000-0001-6806-0374, RWTH Aachen University)
EditoresItalo Francesco Angelillo (0000-0003-1213-6602)
Año2018
Volumen13
Número12
Páginase0208601
Fecha de publicación2018-12-07
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaPLoS ONE (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1932-6203 • E-ISSN: 1932-6203
EditorialPublic Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0208601
PMID30532274
OpenAlexW2904860816
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas237
Referencias citadas76

BACKGROUND: Monitoring the reasons why a considerable number of people do not receive recommended vaccinations allows identification of important trends over time, and designing and evaluating strategies to address vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake. Existing validated measures assessing vaccine hesitancy focus primarily on confidence in vaccines and the system that delivers them. However, empirical and theoretical work has stated that complacency (not perceiving diseases as high risk), constraints (structural and psychological barriers), calculation (engagement in extensive information searching), and aspects pertaining to collective responsibility (willingness to protect others) also play a role in explaining vaccination behavior. The objective was therefore to develop a validated measure of these 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Three cross-sectional studies were conducted. Study 1 uses factor analysis to develop an initial scale and assesses the sub-scales' convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity (N = 1,445, two German convenience-samples). In Study 2, a sample representative regarding age and gender for the German population (N = 1,003) completed the measure for vaccination in general and for specific vaccinations to assess the potential need for a vaccine-specific wording of items. Study 3 compared the novel scale's performance with six existing measures of vaccine hesitancy (N = 350, US convenience-sample). As an outcome, a long (15-item) and short (5-item) 5C scale were developed as reliable and valid indicators of confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility. The 5C sub-scales correlated with relevant psychological concepts, such as attitude (confidence), perceived personal health status and invulnerability (complacency), self-control (constraints), preference for deliberation (calculation), and communal orientation (collective responsibility), among others. The new scale provided similar results when formulated in a general vs. vaccine-specific way (Study 2). In a comparison of seven measures the 5C scale was constantly among the scales that explained the highest amounts of variance in analyses predicting single vaccinations (between 20% and 40%; Study 3). The present studies are limited to the concurrent validity of the scales. CONCLUSIONS: The 5C scale provides a novel tool to monitor psychological antecedents of vaccination and facilitates diagnosis, intervention design and evaluation. Its short version is suitable for field settings and regular global monitoring of relevant antecedents of vaccination.

Confidence interval · Discriminant validity · Environmental health · Population · Psychometrics · Sample (material) · Scale (ratio) · Vaccination · Applied Psychology · Clinical Psychology · Immunology · Medicine · Optimism, Hope, and Well-being · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology · Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy