Using the precaution adoption process model to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine in England. Issue 15 (6th April 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Meyer, Carly; Goffe, Louis; Antonopoulou, Vivi; Graham, Fiona; Tang, Mei Yee; Lecouturier, Jan; Grimani, Aikaterini; Chadwick, Paul; Sniehotta, Falko F.
• Is Part Of: Vaccine. Volume 41:Issue 15(2023)
• Page Start: 2466
• Page End: 2475
• Publication Date: 2023-04-06
• Subjects: Coronavirus -- Vaccine hesitancy -- Booster vaccination -- Precaution adoption process model -- Health belief model -- Theory of planned behaviour; Vaccines -- Periodicals; 615.372
• DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.047
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-410X

Abstract

Highlights: About 20 % of people > 50 years sampled in England (N = 2, 004) had not yet decided to have the COVID-19 booster vaccine. Stage theory captures qualitative differences in those who have not had the COVID-19 booster vaccine. Improving knowledge of vaccine safety and effectiveness is a priority in the vaccine hesitant. Less financial security and less social pressure is associated with being unengaged in decision to have booster vaccine. More negative vaccine attitudes, vaccine type, and not being of white British ethnicity is associated with being undecided. Abstract: Background: COVID-19 continues to pose a threat to public health. Booster vaccine programmes are critical to maintain population-level immunity. Stage theory models of health behaviour can help our understanding of vaccine decision-making in the context of perceived threats of COVID-19. Purpose: To use the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine (CBV) in England. Methods: An online, cross-sectional survey informed by the PAPM, the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model administered to people over the age of 50 residing in England, UK in October 2021. A multivariate, multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine associations with the different stages of CBV decision-making. Results: Of the total 2, 004 participants: 135 (6.7%) were unengaged with the CBV programme; 262 (13.1%) were undecided as to whether to have a CBV; 31 (1.5%) had decided not to have a CBV; 1, 415 (70.6%) had decided to have a CBV; and 161 (8.0%) had already had their CBV. Being unengaged was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system to protect against COVID-19, being employed, and low household income; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, and higher academic qualifications. Being undecided was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system and having previously received the Oxford/AstraZeneca (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, positive attitudes regarding CBV, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, white British ethnicity, and living in East Midlands (vs London). Conclusions: Public health interventions promoting CBV may improve uptake through tailored messaging directed towards the specific decision stage relating to having a COVID-19 booster.