A survey instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance
A survey instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.01.006
复制
发表时间：
2018-04-01
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
McCright, Aaron M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sarathchandra, Dilshani;Navin, Mark C.;McCright, Aaron M.
准确衡量疫苗接受度非常重要，特别是在当前错误信息可能增加公众对疫苗的焦虑并使疫苗接种政策政治化的情况下。我们整合了大量知识、概念化和测量专业知识以及调查设计原则，开发了一种测量公众对疫苗接受程度的工具。鉴于这一广泛的目标，我们希望我们的新工具将补充，而不是取代，现有的工具，专门用来衡量父母的疫苗犹豫。我们的工具衡量了疫苗接受的五个关键方面：（1）疫苗的安全性;（2）疫苗的有效性和必要性;（3）接受疫苗的选择和时间表;（4）对疫苗的积极价值和影响;（5）当局要求接种疫苗的合法性。我们报告的分析结果表明，该仪器的可靠性和有效性。五个分量表和全量表的高克朗巴赫α值表明该工具的可靠性以及预期预测因子的一致性能（即，对生物学家的信任，阴谋思维和政治意识形态）证明了该工具的结构效度。此外，科学推理增加了自由主义者对疫苗的接受程度，但降低了保守主义者对疫苗的接受程度，这与动机性认知是一致的。此外，对生物学家的信任对保守派接受疫苗的积极影响比自由派更大，这表明可能有希望减少疫苗的政治两极分化，提高公众对疫苗的接受程度。最后，我们确定了公共卫生研究人员，科学研究学者和卫生从业人员可以使用我们的疫苗接受工具的完整（或简短）版本的关键方法。
Accurately measuring vaccine acceptance is important, especially under current conditions in which misinformation may increase public anxiety about vaccines and politicize vaccination policies. We integrated substantive knowledge, conceptualization and measurement expertise, and survey design principles to develop an instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance across the general public. Given this broad goal, we expect our novel instrument will complement, rather than replace, existing instruments designed specifically to measure parents' vaccine hesitancy. Our instrument measures five key facets of vaccine acceptance: (1) perceived safety of vaccines; (2) perceived effectiveness and necessity of vaccines; (3) acceptance of the selection and scheduling of vaccines; (4) positive values and affect toward vaccines; and (5) perceived legitimacy of authorities to require vaccinations. We report results of analyses demonstrating the reliability and validity of this instrument. High Cronbach's alpha values for five sub-scales and for the full scale indicate the instrument's reliability, and the consistent performance of expected predictors (i.e., trust in biologists, conspiratorial ideation, and political ideology) demonstrates the instrument's construct validity. Further, scientific reasoning increases vaccine acceptance among liberals but decreases vaccine acceptance among conservatives, which is consistent with motivated cognition. Also, trust in biologists has a stronger positive effect on vaccine acceptance among conservatives than among liberals, signaling a potentially promising means to reduce political polarization on vaccines and increase vaccine acceptance across the general public. We end by identifying key ways that public health researchers, science studies scholars, and health practitioners may employ the full (or short) version of our vaccine acceptance instrument.