Profiling vaccine believers and skeptics in nurses: A latent profile analysis.

Citation metadata

Publisher: Elsevier B.V.
Document Type: Report
Length: 617 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords COVID-19; COVID-19 vaccine; Influenza vaccine; Vaccine hesitancy; Nurse; Latent profile analysis; Person-centered approach Abstract Background A tailored immunization program is deemed more successful in encouraging vaccination. Understanding the profiles of vaccine hesitancy constructs in nurses can help policymakers in devising such programs. Encouraging vaccination in nurses is an important step in building public confidence in the upcoming COVID-19 and influenza vaccination campaigns. Objectives Using a person-centered approach, this study aimed to reveal the profiles of the 5C psychological constructs of vaccine hesitancy (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility) among Hong Kong nurses. Design Cross-sectional online survey. Settings With the promotion of a professional nursing organization, we invited Hong Kong nurses to complete an online survey between mid-March and late April 2020 during the COVID-19 outbreak. Participants 1,193 eligible nurses (mean age = 40.82, SD = 10.49; with 90.0% being female) were included in the analyses. Methods In the online survey, we asked the invited nurses to report their demographics, COVID-19-related work demands (including the supply of personal protective equipment, work stress, and attitudes towards workplace infection control policies), the 5C vaccine hesitancy components, seasonal influenza vaccine uptake history, and the COVID-19 vaccine uptake intention. Latent profile analysis was employed to identify distinct vaccine hesitancy antecedent subgroups. Results Results revealed five profiles, including "believers" (31%; high confidence, collective responsibility; low complacency, constraint), "skeptics" (11%; opposite to the believers), "outsiders" (14%; low calculation, collective responsibility), "contradictors" (4%; high in all 5C constructs), and "middlers" (40%; middle in all 5C constructs). Believers were less educated, reported more long-term illnesses, greater work stress, higher perceived personal protective equipment sufficiency, and stronger trust in government than skeptics. They were older and had higher perceived personal protective equipment sufficiency than middlers. Also, believers were older and had greater work stress than outsiders. From the highest to the lowest on vaccination uptake and intention were believers and contradictors, then middlers and outsiders, and finally skeptics. Conclusion Different immunization programs can be devised based on the vaccine hesitancy profiles and their predictors. Despite both profiles being low in vaccination uptake and intention, our results distinguished between outsiders and skeptics regarding their different levels of information-seeking engagement. The profile structure reveals the possibilities in devising tailored interventions based on their 5C characteristics. The current data could serve as the reference for the identification of individual profile membership and future profiling studies. Future endeavor is needed to examine the generalizability of the profile structure in other populations and across different study sites. Tweetable abstract: Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy profiles of Hong Kong nurses (believers, sceptics, outsiders, contradictors and middlers) highlight the importance of tailored vaccine campaigns. Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (b) JC School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (c) College of Computing and Informatics, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of) (d) Stanley Ho Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (e) Shenzhen Research Institute of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China (f) Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China * Corresponding author at: Room 419, 4/F, JC School of Public Health and Primary Care Building, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. Article History: Received 11 March 2021; Revised 2 September 2021; Accepted 21 November 2021 (footnote)1 Joint correspondence. Byline: Cyrus Lap Kwan Leung (a,b), Kin-Kit Li [ben.li@cityu.edu.hk] (a,1,**), Vivian Wan In Wei (b), Arthur Tang (c), Samuel Yeung Shan Wong (b), Shui Shan Lee (b,d), Kin On Kwok [kkokwok@cuhk.edu.hk] (b,d,e,f,1,*)

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A689867781