Predicting willingness to be vaccinated for Covid-19: Evidence from New Zealand
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Governments around the world are seeking to slow the spread of Covid-19 and reduce hospitalisations by encouraging mass vaccinations for Covid-19. The success of this policy depends on most of the population accepting the vaccine and then being vaccinated. Understanding and predicting the motivation of individuals to be vaccinated is, therefore, critical in assessing the likely effectiveness of a mass vaccination programme in slowing the spread of the virus. In this paper we draw on the I 3 Response Framework to understand and predict the willingness of New Zealanders to be vaccinated for Covid-19. The Framework differs from most studies predicting willingness to be vaccinated because it is based on the idea that the willingness to adopt a behaviour depends on both involvement (a measure of motivational strength) with the behaviour and attitudes towards the behaviour. We show that predictions of individuals’ willingness to be vaccinated are improved using involvement and attitudes together, compared to attitudes alone. This result has important implications for the implementation of mass vaccination programmes for Covid-19.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.24.21265447: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable A total of 1,002 completed responses was obtained, of which 53% were from women and 47% from men. Randomization The ordering of the statements in the involvement, attitude, and belief scales was randomised to avoid bias in responses. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical analyses were conducted using the ‘cluster’ and ‘regression’ commands in SPSS [39]. SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.24.21265447: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable A total of 1,002 completed responses was obtained, of which 53% were from women and 47% from men. Randomization The ordering of the statements in the involvement, attitude, and belief scales was randomised to avoid bias in responses. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Statistical analyses were conducted using the ‘cluster’ and ‘regression’ commands in SPSS [39]. SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
-
