Integrating Health Behavior Theories to Predict COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: Differences between Medical Students and Nursing Students
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
This study aimed to explore behavioral-related factors predicting the intention of getting a COVID-19 vaccine among medical and nursing students using an integrative model combining the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).
Methods
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among medical and nursing students aged > 18 years in their clinical years in Israel between 27 August and 28 September 2020. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to predict acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Results
A total number of 628 participants completed the survey. Medical students expressed higher intentions of getting vaccinated against COVID-19 than nursing students (88.1% vs. 76.2%, p < 0.01). The integrated model based on HBM and TPB was able to explain 66% of the variance (adjusted R 2 = 0.66). Participants were more likely to be willing to get vaccinated if they reported higher levels of perceived susceptibility, benefits, barriers, cues to action, attitude, self-efficacy and anticipated regret. Two interaction effects revealed that male nurses had a higher intention of getting vaccinated than did female nurses and that susceptibility is a predictor of the intention of getting vaccinated only among nurses.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates that both models considered (i.e., HBM and TPB) are important for predicting the intention of getting a COVID-19 vaccine among medical and nursing students, and can help better guide intervention programs, based on components from both models. Our findings also highlight the importance of paying attention to a targeted group of female nurses, who expressed low vaccine acceptance.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.18.21257416: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: At the beginning of the questionnaire form (see below), the respondents were informed that their participation was voluntary, they were permitted to terminate their participation at any time and that they confirmed informed consent to participate in the research.
IRB: Ethical considerations: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Non-clinical Studies of Bar Ilan-University.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical analyses: Data processing and analysis was done using SPSS for Windows (Version 25) software and the Process add-on … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.18.21257416: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics Consent: At the beginning of the questionnaire form (see below), the respondents were informed that their participation was voluntary, they were permitted to terminate their participation at any time and that they confirmed informed consent to participate in the research.
IRB: Ethical considerations: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Non-clinical Studies of Bar Ilan-University.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical analyses: Data processing and analysis was done using SPSS for Windows (Version 25) software and the Process add-on for SPSS (Version 3.5) (Bolin, 2014). SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Study limitations: This study has several limitations that should be recognized when interpreting the results reported here. First, there is the time of distribution of the questionnaire. Specifically, the study was conducted before the vaccine was available. At that point, information on vaccine efficiency and safety were not definite. It is possible that were the questionnaires distributed in December 2020, the degree of reporting of intent to vaccinate would have been different as the vaccine became available. Second, this study relies on self-reported questionnaires rather than objective measurement of actual vaccination, which is subjective in manner and can lead to a bias. Additionally, although the questionnaire was anonymous, it is possible that respondents answered in a manner that would allow them to be viewed more favorably, especially due to their role in the healthcare system, and therefore a social-desirability bias might be present.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-