tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Vaccine
Available online 6 October 2012
In Press, Uncorrected Proof ? Note to users
Cover image
Predicting vaccination using numerical and affective risk perceptions: The case of A/H1N1 influenza
Britta RennerCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Tabea Reuter
University of Konstanz, Germany
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.09.064
Abstract
During the 2009 A/H1N1 flu pandemic, German health authorities recommended vaccination; however, the efficacy of such programs largely depends on individuals? risk perception. Risk perceptions are commonly determined through numerical-cognitive estimates such as the perceived likelihood and severity of the hazard. Instead, we argue that risk perceptions, which include more affect-related aspects such as worry and threat, are more powerful predictors of protective behaviors. Moreover, vaccines are often perceived as double-edged since they offer protection but also involve adverse side-effects. As such, in the context of the A/H1N1 vaccine uptake, risk perception is not only disease-related (A/H1N1 infection) but also vaccine-related (A/H1N1 vaccine). The present longitudinal study was conducted during the run-up to the German A/H1N1 vaccination campaign and measured cognitive and affective risk perceptions associated with both the A/H1N1 infection and its vaccine (T1, October 2009, N = 397) in order to assess their impact on (self-reported) A/H1N1 vaccination eight weeks later (T2, December 2009; N = 285). As assumed, greater perceived likelihood and severity of infection were associated with greater affective risk perception at T1. The more threatened and worried people felt, the more they intended to get vaccinated; however, the greater the perceived likelihood and severity of vaccine adverse side-effects, the greater the amount of vaccine related affective risk perception, impeding vaccination intention. Finally, vaccination intention predicted vaccination eight weeks later at T2 (OR = 2.2). The results suggest that numerical-cognitive risk perceptions, which are typically the target of public vaccination campaigns, do not impact preventive intention directly; instead, they facilitate affect-related risk perceptions, which motivate protective action.
Highlights
► A/H1N1 vaccination intention (T1) predicted vaccination eight weeks later (OR = 2.2). ► Affective risk perception was more behavior-relevant than cognitive risk perception. ► Fear of infection was not sufficient for triggering vaccination. ► Vaccination intention occurred only, when fear of vaccine side-effects was low.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12013965
Available online 6 October 2012
In Press, Uncorrected Proof ? Note to users
Cover image
Predicting vaccination using numerical and affective risk perceptions: The case of A/H1N1 influenza
Britta RennerCorresponding author contact information, E-mail the corresponding author,
Tabea Reuter
University of Konstanz, Germany
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.09.064
Abstract
During the 2009 A/H1N1 flu pandemic, German health authorities recommended vaccination; however, the efficacy of such programs largely depends on individuals? risk perception. Risk perceptions are commonly determined through numerical-cognitive estimates such as the perceived likelihood and severity of the hazard. Instead, we argue that risk perceptions, which include more affect-related aspects such as worry and threat, are more powerful predictors of protective behaviors. Moreover, vaccines are often perceived as double-edged since they offer protection but also involve adverse side-effects. As such, in the context of the A/H1N1 vaccine uptake, risk perception is not only disease-related (A/H1N1 infection) but also vaccine-related (A/H1N1 vaccine). The present longitudinal study was conducted during the run-up to the German A/H1N1 vaccination campaign and measured cognitive and affective risk perceptions associated with both the A/H1N1 infection and its vaccine (T1, October 2009, N = 397) in order to assess their impact on (self-reported) A/H1N1 vaccination eight weeks later (T2, December 2009; N = 285). As assumed, greater perceived likelihood and severity of infection were associated with greater affective risk perception at T1. The more threatened and worried people felt, the more they intended to get vaccinated; however, the greater the perceived likelihood and severity of vaccine adverse side-effects, the greater the amount of vaccine related affective risk perception, impeding vaccination intention. Finally, vaccination intention predicted vaccination eight weeks later at T2 (OR = 2.2). The results suggest that numerical-cognitive risk perceptions, which are typically the target of public vaccination campaigns, do not impact preventive intention directly; instead, they facilitate affect-related risk perceptions, which motivate protective action.
Highlights
► A/H1N1 vaccination intention (T1) predicted vaccination eight weeks later (OR = 2.2). ► Affective risk perception was more behavior-relevant than cognitive risk perception. ► Fear of infection was not sufficient for triggering vaccination. ► Vaccination intention occurred only, when fear of vaccine side-effects was low.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12013965