Suchergebnisse

Background: Although several COVID-19 vaccines are available, the current challenge is achieving high vaccine uptake. We aimed to explore university students' intention to get vaccinated and select the most relevant determinants/beliefs to facilitate informed decision making around COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey with students (N = 434) from Maastricht University was conducted in March 2021. The most relevant determinants/beliefs of students' COVID-19 vaccine intention (i.e., determinants linked to vaccination intention, and with enough potential for change) were visualized using CIBER plots. Results: Students' intention to get the COVID-19 vaccine was high (80%). Concerns about safety and side effects of the vaccine and trust in government, quality control, and the pharmaceutical industry were identified as the most relevant determinants of vaccine intention. Other determinants were risk perception, attitude, perceived norm, and self-efficacy beliefs. Conclusion: Our study identified several determinants of COVID-19 vaccine intention (e.g., safety, trust, risk perception, etc.) and helped to select the most relevant determinants/beliefs to target in an intervention to maximize COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Concerns and trust related to the COVID-19 vaccine are the most important targets for future interventions. Other determinants that were already positive (i.e., risk perception, attitudes, perceived norms, and self-efficacy) could be further confirmed.

BACKGROUND: Although several COVID-19 vaccines are available, the current challenge is achieving high vaccine uptake. We aimed to explore university students' intention to get vaccinated and select the most relevant determinants/beliefs to facilitate informed decision making around COVID-19 vaccine uptake. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey with students ( N = 434) from Maastricht University was conducted in March 2021. The most relevant determinants/beliefs of students' COVID-19 vaccine intention (i.e., determinants linked to vaccination intention, and with enough potential for change) were visualized using CIBER plots. RESULTS: Students' intention to get the COVID-19 vaccine was high (80%). Concerns about safety and side effects of the vaccine and trust in government, quality control, and the pharmaceutical industry were identified as the most relevant determinants of vaccine intention. Other determinants were risk perception, attitude, perceived norm, and self-efficacy beliefs. CONCLUSION: Our study identified several determinants of COVID-19 vaccine intention (e.g., safety, trust, risk perception, etc.) and helped to select the most relevant determinants/beliefs to target in an intervention to maximize COVID-19 vaccination uptake. Concerns and trust related to the COVID-19 vaccine are the most important targets for future interventions. Other determinants that were already positive (i.e., risk perception, attitudes, perceived norms, and self-efficacy) could be further confirmed.

The role of information processing in understanding people's responses to risk information has recently received substantial attention. One limitation of this research concerns the unavailability of a validated questionnaire of information processing. This article presents two studies in which we describe the development and validation of the Information‐Processing Questionnaire to meet that need. Study 1 describes the development and initial validation of the questionnaire. Participants were randomized to either a systematic processing or a heuristic processing condition after which they completed a manipulation check and the initial 15‐item questionnaire and again two weeks later. The questionnaire was subjected to factor reliability and validity analyses on both measurement times for purposes of cross‐validation of the results. A two‐factor solution was observed representing a systematic processing and a heuristic processing subscale. The resulting scale showed good reliability and validity, with the systematic condition scoring significantly higher on the systematic subscale and the heuristic processing condition significantly higher on the heuristic subscale. Study 2 sought to further validate the questionnaire in a field study. Results of the second study corresponded with those of Study 1 and provided further evidence of the validity of the Information‐Processing Questionnaire. The availability of this information‐processing scale will be a valuable asset for future research and may provide researchers with new research opportunities.

Risk communications are an integral aspect of health education and promotion. However, the commonly used textual risk information is relatively difficult to understand for the average recipient. Consequently, researchers and health promoters have started to focus on so‐called decision aids, such as tables and graphs. Although tabular and graphical risk information more effectively communicate risks than textual risk information, the cognitive mechanisms responsible for this enhancement are unclear. This study aimed to examine two possible mechanisms (i.e., cognitive workload and attention). Cognitive workload (mean pupil size and peak pupil dilation) and attention directed to the risk information (viewing time, number of eye fixations, and eye fixation durations) were both measured in a between‐subjects experimental design. The results suggest that graphical risk information facilitates comprehension of that information because it attracts and holds attention for a longer period of time than textual risk information. Graphs are thus a valuable asset to risk communication practice for two reasons: first, they tend to attract attention and, second, when attended to, they elicit information extraction with relatively little cognitive effort, and finally result in better comprehension.