For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
14
views
20
references
 Top references
cited by
201
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      632
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Correlates and disparities of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • •

            More than 30% of the US public does not intend to vaccinate against COVID-19.

          • •

            Intention to refuse vaccination is highest for women and Blacks.

          • •

            COVID-19 vaccine refusal is most often due to safety and effectiveness concerns.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Vaccine Efficacy Needed for a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic as the Sole Intervention

          Sarah Bartsch, Kelly O'Shea, Marie Ferguson … (2020)
          Introduction Given the continuing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing owing to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing. Methods In 2020, the team developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination. Results Simulation experiments revealed that to prevent an epidemic (reduce the peak by >99%), the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when vaccination coverage is 100% (reproduction number [R0]=2.5–3.5). This vaccine efficacy threshold rises to 70% when coverage drops to 75% and up to 80% when coverage drops to 60% when R0 is 2.5, rising to 80% when coverage drops to 75% when R0 is 3.5. To extinguish an ongoing epidemic, the vaccine efficacy has to be at least 60% when coverage is 100% and at least 80% when coverage drops to 75% to reduce the peak by 85%–86%, 61%–62%, and 32% when vaccination occurs after 5%, 15%, and 30% of the population have already been exposed to COVID-19 coronavirus. A vaccine with an efficacy between 60% and 80% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages. Conclusions This study found that the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to prevent an epidemic and of at least 80% to largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing).
          Article 0 comments Cited 150 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information.

            Brendan Nyhan, Michael Reifler (2015)
            Seasonal influenza is responsible for thousands of deaths and billions of dollars of medical costs per year in the United States, but influenza vaccination coverage remains substantially below public health targets. One possible obstacle to greater immunization rates is the false belief that it is possible to contract the flu from the flu vaccine. A nationally representative survey experiment was conducted to assess the extent of this flu vaccine misperception. We find that a substantial portion of the public (43%) believes that the flu vaccine can give you the flu. We also evaluate how an intervention designed to address this concern affects belief in the myth, concerns about flu vaccine safety, and future intent to vaccinate. Corrective information adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website significantly reduced belief in the myth that the flu vaccine can give you the flu as well as concerns about its safety. However, the correction also significantly reduced intent to vaccinate among respondents with high levels of concern about vaccine side effects--a response that was not observed among those with low levels of concern. This result, which is consistent with previous research on misperceptions about the MMR vaccine, suggests that correcting myths about vaccines may not be an effective approach to promoting immunization. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Article 0 comments Cited 131 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate

              Bert Baumgaertner, Juliet Carlisle, Florian Justwan (2018)
              In light of the increasing refusal of some parents to vaccinate children, public health strategies have focused on increasing knowledge and awareness based on a “knowledge-deficit” approach. However, decisions about vaccination are based on more than mere knowledge of risks, costs, and benefits. Individual decision making about vaccinating involves many other factors including those related to emotion, culture, religion, and socio-political context. In this paper, we use a nationally representative internet survey in the U.S. to investigate socio-political characteristics to assess attitudes about vaccination. In particular, we consider how political ideology and trust affect opinions about vaccinations for flu, pertussis, and measles. Our findings demonstrate that ideology has a direct effect on vaccine attitudes. In particular, conservative respondents are less likely to express pro-vaccination beliefs than other individuals. Furthermore, ideology also has an indirect effect on immunization propensity. The ideology variable predicts an indicator capturing trust in government medical experts, which in turn helps to explain individual-level variation with regards to attitudes about vaccine choice.
              Article 0 comments Cited 119 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Soc Sci Med
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Soc Sci Med
                Title: Social Science & Medicine (1982)
                Publisher: Elsevier Ltd.
                ISSN (Print): 0277-9536
                ISSN (Electronic): 1873-5347
                Publication date PMC-release: 4 January 2021
                Publication date (Electronic): 4 January 2021
                Electronic Location Identifier: 113638
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, 212 Adriance Lab Rd. 1266 TAMU, College Station, TX, USA
                [b ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Milken School of Public Health, George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire Avenue, Washington, DC, USA
                [c ]Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, 456 Ross St., College Station, TX, USA
                [d ]Texas Children's Center for Vaccine Development, Department of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, USA
                [e ]Government Department, Wesleyan University, 238 Church St., Middletown, CT, USA
                [f ]Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, 210 Social Sciences and Humanities Hall, Stillwater, OK, USA
                Author notes
                [∗ ]Corresponding author.
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S0277-9536(20)30857-1 Publisher ID: 113638
                DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113638
                PMC ID: 7834845
                PubMed ID: 33414032
                SO-VID: 95aa00fc-e2b8-4843-b61e-21619922d525
                Copyright © © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                License:

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Date revision received : 11 December 2020
                Date accepted : 18 December 2020
                Categories
                Subject: Article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content632

                See all similar

                Cited by202

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors115

                See all reference authors