IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0279393.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trustworthiness of information sources on vaccines for COVID-19 prevention among Brazilians

Author

Listed:
  • Adriana Teixeira Reis
  • Karla Gonçalves Camacho
  • Maria de Fátima Junqueira-Marinho
  • Saint Clair dos Santos Gomes Junior
  • Dimitri Marques Abramov
  • Livia Almeida de Menezes
  • Marcio Fernandes Nehab
  • Carlos Eduardo da Silva Figueiredo
  • Maria Elisabeth Lopes Moreira
  • Zilton Farias Meira de Vasconcelos
  • Flavia Amendola Anisio de Carvalho
  • Livia de Rezende de Mello
  • Roberta Fernandes Correia
  • Zina Maria Almeida de Azevedo
  • Margarida dos Santos Salú
  • Daniella Campelo Batalha Cox Moore

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to assess the trustworthiness of information sources, perception of clear information about the vaccine, and strategies to increase adherence to vaccination to provide managers with information that helps establish effective communication with the population about vaccination. Method: This is an online survey conducted between January 22 and 29, 2021, preceded by an Informed Consent, that aims to assess vaccine hesitancy, which corresponded to the first week of vaccination initiation to prevent COVID-19 in Brazil. Data were obtained from a questionnaire made available through a free platform and stored in Google Forms and later exported to the SPSS statistical package for analysis. The sample consisted of all questionnaires from participants who self-declared as age 18 or older, Brazilian, and residing in Brazil at the time of the survey. Incomplete records with more than 50% of blank items and duplicates were excluded. All categorical variables were analyzed from their absolute and relative frequencies. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to verify the relationship between dependent variables and independent variables. Results: The results show that trust in information sources diverges between hesitant and non-hesitant. They also showed that some participants show an overall distrust that seems to have deeper foundations than issues related only to the source of information. The high rejection of television and the WHO as sources of information among hesitant suggests that integrated actions with research institutes, public figures vaccinating, and religious leaders can help to combat vaccine hesitation. Two actors become particularly important in this dynamic, both for good and bad, and their anti-vaxxer behavior must be observed: the doctor and the Ministry of Health. Conclusion: This study contributes to gathering valuable information to help understand the behavior and thinking relevant to the adherence to vaccination recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriana Teixeira Reis & Karla Gonçalves Camacho & Maria de Fátima Junqueira-Marinho & Saint Clair dos Santos Gomes Junior & Dimitri Marques Abramov & Livia Almeida de Menezes & Marcio Fernandes Nehab , 2023. "Trustworthiness of information sources on vaccines for COVID-19 prevention among Brazilians," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0279393
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279393
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279393&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0279393?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Nirosha Elsem Varghese & Iryna Sabat & Pedro Pita Barros & Werner Brouwer & Job Exel & Jonas Schreyögg & Tom Stargardt, 2020. "Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 977-982, September.
    2. Vincenzo Galasso & Vincent Pons & Paola Profeta & Michael Becher & Sylvain Brouard & Martial Foucault, 2020. "Gender Differences in COVID-19 Related Attitudes and Behavior: Evidence from a Panel Survey in Eight OECD Countries," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03594437, HAL.
    3. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/30j8b527qi94hpffbv52bsav72 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Jamie Murphy & Frédérique Vallières & Richard P. Bentall & Mark Shevlin & Orla McBride & Todd K. Hartman & Ryan McKay & Kate Bennett & Liam Mason & Jilly Gibson-Miller & Liat Levita & Anton P. Martine, 2021. "Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/30j8b527qi94hpffbv52bsav72 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Jian Cao & Christina M. Ramirez & R. Michael Alvarez, 2022. "The politics of vaccine hesitancy in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(1), pages 42-54, January.
    2. Peer Henri Kieweg & Stefanie Schöberl & Gabriele Palozzi, 2021. "The Role of Communication In COVID-19 Crisis Management: Findings about Information Behavior of German and Italian Young People," International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), Computer Science Journals (CSC Journals), vol. 12(5), pages 263-288, October.
    3. Zuzanna Kowalik & Piotr Lewandowski, 2021. "The gender gap in aversion to COVID-19 exposure: Evidence from professional tennis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-10, March.
    4. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Borisova, Ekaterina & Gründler, Klaus & Hackenberger, Armin & Harter, Anina & Potrafke, Niklas & Schoors, Koen, 2023. "Crisis experience and the deep roots of COVID-19 vaccination preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    6. Giulietti, Corrado & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2023. "When reality bites: Local deaths and vaccine take-up," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    7. Holden, Stein T. & Tione, Sarah & Tilahun, Mesfin & Katengeza, Samson, 2023. "Religion, beliefs, trust, and COVID vaccination behavior among rural people in Malawi?," CLTS Working Papers 4/23, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies.
    8. Tine Buyl & Thomas Gehrig & Jonas Schreyögg & Andreas Wieland, 2022. "Resilience: A Critical Appraisal of the State of Research for Business and Society," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 453-463, December.
    9. Krishna Reddy Gujjula & Jiangyue Gong & Brittany Segundo & Lewis Ntaimo, 2022. "COVID-19 vaccination policies under uncertain transmission characteristics using stochastic programming," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(7), pages 1-21, July.
    10. Sonia OREFICCE & Climent Quintana-Domeque, 2021. "Gender inequality in COVID-19 times: evidence from UK prolific participants," JODE - Journal of Demographic Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 261-287, June.
    11. Pronkina, Elizaveta & Berniell, Inés & Fawaz, Yarine & Laferrère, Anne & Mira, Pedro, 2023. "The COVID-19 curtain: Can past communist regimes explain the vaccination divide in Europe?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 321(C).
    12. Abel Brodeur & David Gray & Anik Islam & Suraiya Bhuiyan, 2021. "A literature review of the economics of COVID‐19," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 1007-1044, September.
    13. Borau, Sylvie & Couprie, Hélène & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2022. "The prosociality of married people: Evidence from a large multinational sample," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    14. Xiang, Hongzhe & Li, Yiwei & Guo, Yu, 2023. "Promoting COVID-19 booster vaccines in Macao: A psychological reactance perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    15. Thomas Wein, 2021. "Ist eine Impfpflicht gegen das Coronavirus nötig? [Is Mandatory Vaccination Against the Coronavirus Necessary?]," Wirtschaftsdienst, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 101(2), pages 114-120, February.
    16. Victoria Costoya & Lucía Echeverría & María Edo & Ana Rocha & Agustina Thailinger, 2022. "Gender Gaps within Couples: Evidence of Time Re-allocations during COVID-19 in Argentina," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 213-226, June.
    17. Sohns, Franziska & Ghinoi, Stefano & Langosch, Magdalena, 2024. "The effect of public tolerance towards corruptive behaviour on healthcare efficiency and equity – The case of the UK's COVID-19 vaccination programme," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 361(C).
    18. Louise Rawlings & Jeffrey C. L. Looi & Stephen J. Robson, 2022. "Economic Considerations in COVID‐19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Refusal: A Survey of the Literature," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 98(321), pages 214-229, June.
    19. Tuomo Hartonen & Bradley Jermy & Hanna Sõnajalg & Pekka Vartiainen & Kristi Krebs & Andrius Vabalas & Tuija Leino & Hanna Nohynek & Jonas Sivelä & Reedik Mägi & Mark Daly & Hanna M. Ollila & Lili Mila, 2023. "Nationwide health, socio-economic and genetic predictors of COVID-19 vaccination status in Finland," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1069-1083, July.
    20. Katsushi S. Imai & Nidhi Kaicker & Raghav Gaiha, 2021. "Severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic in India," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 517-546, May.

    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:pone00:0279393. 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: 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.