IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0017713.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors Affecting Intention to Receive and Self-Reported Receipt of 2009 Pandemic (H1N1) Vaccine in Hong Kong: A Longitudinal Study

Author

Listed:
  • Qiuyan Liao
  • Benjamin J Cowling
  • Wendy Wing Tak Lam
  • Richard Fielding

Abstract

Background: Vaccination was a core component for mitigating the 2009 influenza pandemic (pH1N1). However, a vaccination program's efficacy largely depends on population compliance. We examined general population decision-making for pH1N1 vaccination using a modified Theory of Planned Behaviour (TBP). Methodology: We conducted a longitudinal study, collecting data before and after the introduction of pH1N1 vaccine in Hong Kong. Structural equation modeling (SEM) tested if a modified TPB had explanatory utility for vaccine uptake among adults. Principal Findings: Among 896 subjects who completed both the baseline and the follow-up surveys, 7% (67/896) reported being “likely/very likely/certain” to be vaccinated (intent) but two months later only 0.8% (7/896) reported having received pH1N1 vaccination. Perception of low risk from pH1N1 (60%) and concerns regarding adverse effects of the vaccine (37%) were primary justifications for avoiding pH1N1 vaccination. Greater perceived vaccine benefits (β = 0.15), less concerns regarding vaccine side-effects (β = −0.20), greater adherence to social norms of vaccination (β = 0.39), anticipated higher regret if not vaccinated (β = 0.47), perceived higher self-efficacy for vaccination (β = 0.12) and history of seasonal influenza vaccination (β = 0.12) were associated with higher intention to receive the pH1N1 vaccine, which in turn predicted self-reported vaccination uptake (β = 0.30). Social norm (β = 0.70), anticipated regret (β = 0.19) and vaccination intention (β = 0.31) were positively associated with, and accounted for 70% of variance in vaccination planning, which, in turn subsequently predicted self-reported vaccination uptake (β = 0.36) accounting for 36% of variance in reported vaccination behaviour. Conclusions/Significance: Perceived low risk from pH1N1 and perceived high risk from pH1N1 vaccine inhibited pH1N1 vaccine uptake. Both the TPB and the additional components contributed to intended vaccination uptake but social norms and anticipated regret predominantly associated with vaccination intention and planning. Vaccination planning is a more significant proximal determinant of uptake of pH1N1 vaccine than is intention. Intention alone is an unreliable predictor of future vaccine uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiuyan Liao & Benjamin J Cowling & Wendy Wing Tak Lam & Richard Fielding, 2011. "Factors Affecting Intention to Receive and Self-Reported Receipt of 2009 Pandemic (H1N1) Vaccine in Hong Kong: A Longitudinal Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0017713
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017713
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017713&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0017713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0017713. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.