IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i15p5459-d391414.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Acceptance of Key Public Health Interventions by the Polish Population Is Related to Health Literacy, But Not eHealth Literacy

Author

Listed:
  • Mariusz Duplaga

    (Department of Health Promotion and e-Health, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Grzegórzecka Str. 20, 31-531 Krakow, Poland)

Abstract

Background : Public health and health promotion rely on many different interventions, which range from health education and communication, through community mobilisation and changes to environmental conditions, to legal and fiscal actions. The introduction of the increased tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), popularly called sugar tax (ST), and a mandatory programme of vaccinations are the strategies inciting the most vivid discussions in Polish society. The study was intended to assess the determinants of the attitudes of Polish society regarding the ST and to vaccinations. Methods : For the analysis, the data originating from the survey of a representative adult sample of Polish society ( n = 1000) was used. The survey was based on computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). The assessment of the relationships between the selected variables and the opinions about the introduction of the ST and the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations were carried out using the chi 2 test and univariate logistic regression models. Results : The acceptance of the ST and vaccination showed a significant relationship to the level of health literacy (HL) but not to eHealth literacy (eHL). Respondents having a higher rather than lower HL; older rather than younger; married rather than singles; retired, or on a disability pension, rather than vocationally active and nonusers of the Internet rather than users were more likely to show an acceptance for both interventions. Those more frequently using health care services and those with chronic diseases showed a greater belief in the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations. Conclusions : The relationship between the opinions of the two public health interventions analysed and the sociodemographic variables demonstrated similar patterns. Interestingly, the opinions were associated only with HL and not with eHL and users of the Internet were more sceptical about the interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariusz Duplaga, 2020. "The Acceptance of Key Public Health Interventions by the Polish Population Is Related to Health Literacy, But Not eHealth Literacy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:15:p:5459-:d:391414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/15/5459/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/15/5459/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tracy Comans & Nicole Moretto & Joshua Byrnes, 2017. "Public Preferences for the Use of Taxation and Labelling Policy Measures to Combat Obesity in Young Children in Australia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-11, March.
    2. Klaus Eichler & Simon Wieser & Urs Brügger, 2009. "The costs of limited health literacy: a systematic review," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 54(5), pages 313-324, October.
    3. Jorien Veldwijk & Iris van der Heide & Jany Rademakers & A. Jantine Schuit & G. Ardine de Wit & Ellen Uiters & Mattijs S. Lambooij, 2015. "Preferences for Vaccination," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(8), pages 948-958, November.
    4. Hanna Czajka & Szymon Czajka & Paweł Biłas & Paulina Pałka & Szczepan Jędrusik & Anna Czapkiewicz, 2020. "Who or What Influences the Individuals’ Decision-Making Process Regarding Vaccinations?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Mariusz Duplaga, 2020. "Determinants and Consequences of Limited Health Literacy in Polish Society," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Atanu Sengupta & Sanjoy De, 2020. "Review of Literature," India Studies in Business and Economics, in: Assessing Performance of Banks in India Fifty Years After Nationalization, chapter 0, pages 15-30, Springer.
    7. Mariusz Duplaga & Karolina Sobecka & Sylwia Wójcik, 2019. "The Reliability and Validity of the Telephone-Based and Online Polish eHealth Literacy Scale Based on Two Nationally Representative Samples," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-12, September.
    8. Dragos C Petrescu & Gareth J Hollands & Dominique-Laurent Couturier & Yin-Lam Ng & Theresa M Marteau, 2016. "Public Acceptability in the UK and USA of Nudging to Reduce Obesity: The Example of Reducing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mariusz Duplaga, 2020. "The Use of Fitness Influencers’ Websites by Young Adult Women: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Mariusz Duplaga, 2020. "The Determinants of Conspiracy Beliefs Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Nationally Representative Sample of Internet Users," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-15, October.
    3. José María López-Sanz & Azucena Penelas-Leguía & Pablo Gutiérrez-Rodríguez & Pedro Cuesta-Valiño, 2021. "Sustainable Development and Consumer Behavior in Rural Tourism—The Importance of Image and Loyalty for Host Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Cristina Blasi Casagran & Colleen Boland & Elena Sánchez-Montijano & Eva Vilà Sanchez, 2021. "The Role of Emerging Predictive IT Tools in Effective Migration Governance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 133-145.
    5. Maria Maddalena Sirufo & Francesca De Pietro & Alessandra Catalogna & Lia Ginaldi & Massimo De Martinis, 2021. "The Microbiota-Bone-Allergy Interplay," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Oleh Pasko & Mykola Hordiyenko & Fuli Chen & Yarmila Tkal & Yulia Abraham, 2021. "Mapping Global Research on International Financial Reporting Standards: A Scientometric Review," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(3), pages 116-134, May.
    7. Zhang, Tianyu & Dong, Peiwu & Zeng, Yongchao & Ju, Yanbing, 2022. "Analyzing the diffusion of competitive smart wearable devices: An agent-based multi-dimensional relative agreement model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 90-105.
    8. Vitor Hugo Ferreira & André da Costa Pinho & Dickson Silva de Souza & Bárbara Siqueira Rodrigues, 2021. "A New Clustering Approach for Automatic Oscillographic Records Segmentation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-18, October.
    9. Maurizio Massaro & Francesca Dal Mas & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Carlo Bagnoli, 2020. "Crypto‐economy and new sustainable business models: Reflections and projections using a case study analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2150-2160, September.
    10. Ines A. Ferreira & Rachel M. Gisselquist & Finn Tarp, 2021. "On the impact of inequality on growth, human development, and governance," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-34, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    12. Apiradee Nantsupawat & Orn‐Anong Wichaikhum & Kulwadee Abhicharttibutra & Wipada Kunaviktikul & Mohd Said Bin Nurumal & Lusine Poghosyan, 2020. "Nurses' knowledge of health literacy, communication techniques, and barriers to the implementation of health literacy programs: A cross‐sectional study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 577-585, September.
    13. He Tingting, 2021. "Comparing Money and Time Donation: What Do Experiments Tell Us?," Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, Sciendo, vol. 41(3), pages 65-94, September.
    14. Beatriz Calzada Olvera & Mario Gonzalez-Sauri & Federico Louvin & David-Alexander Harings Moya, 2021. "COVID-19 in Central America: effects of firm resilience and policy responses on employment," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-166, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    15. Alberto Cerezo-Narváez & Andrés Pastor-Fernández & Manuel Otero-Mateo & Pablo Ballesteros-Pérez, 2022. "The Influence of Knowledge on Managing Risk for the Success in Complex Construction Projects: The IPMA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-30, August.
    16. Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    17. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Rafidah Md Noor & Nadia Bella Gustiani Rasyidi & Tarak Nandy & Raenu Kolandaisamy, 2020. "Campus Shuttle Bus Route Optimization Using Machine Learning Predictive Analysis: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Dominika Ehrenbergerová & Martin Hodula & Zuzana Gric, 2022. "Does capital-based regulation affect bank pricing policy?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 135-167, April.
    20. Lopez, Claude & Kim, Bumyang & Sacks, Katherine, 2022. "Health Literacy in the United States: Enhancing Assessments and Reducing Disparities," MPRA Paper 114019, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:15:p:5459-:d:391414. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.