Dataset Information

Reactance revisited: Consequences of mandatory and scarce vaccination in the case of COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Psychological reactance theory assumes that the restriction of valued behaviors elicits anger and negative cognitions, motivating actions to regain the limited freedom. Two studies investigated the effects of two possible restrictions affecting COVID-19 vaccination: the limitation of non-vaccination by mandates and the limitation of vaccination by scarce vaccine supply. In the first study, we compared reactance about mandatory and scarce vaccination scenarios and the moderating effect of vaccination intentions, employing a German quota-representative sample (N = 973). In the preregistered second study, we replicated effects with an American sample (N = 1394) and investigated the consequences of reactance on various behavioral intentions. Results revealed that reactance was stronger when a priori vaccination intentions were low and a mandate was introduced or when vaccination intentions were high and vaccines were scarce. In both cases, reactance increased intentions to take actions against the restriction. Further, reactance due to a mandate was positively associated with intentions to avoid the COVID-19 vaccination and an unrelated chickenpox vaccination; it was negatively associated with intentions to show protective behaviors limiting the spread of the coronavirus. Opposite intentions were observed when vaccination was scarce. The findings can help policy-makers to curb the spread of infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Sprengholz P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8239828 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers.Aims and objectivesTo synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study.MethodsThis is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English.Exclusion1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table.ResultsThe review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only.ConclusionThe review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas.Tweetable abstractTo mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.

Project description:BackgroundDeclining vaccination coverage and increasing hesitancy is a worldwide concern. Many countries have implemented mandatory vaccination policies to promote vaccination. However, mandatory vaccination policies differ significantly by country. Beyond case studies, no comprehensive study has compared these policies or the penalties for non-compliance on a global scale.MethodsWe conducted extensive keyword, policy, and literature searches to identify mandatory national vaccination policies globally and develop a comprehensive database. A mandatory national vaccination policy was defined as a policy from a national authority that requires individuals to receive at least one vaccination based on age or to access a service. Two reviewers independently evaluated evidence for a mandate and whether non-compliance penalties were incorporated. We categorized penalties into four types, based on the nature of the penalty. These penalties impact an individual's financial, parental rights, educational (i.e., child's school entry and access), and liberty status. We rated the severity within each category.ResultsOf 193 countries investigated, 54% (n = 105) had evidence of a nationwide mandate as of December 2018. The frequency, types, and severity of penalties varied widely across all regions. We found that 59% (n = 62) of countries with national mandates defined at least one penalty for non-compliance with a vaccine mandate. Among those, educational penalties (i.e., limiting a child's entry or ongoing access to school) were the most common (69%; n = 43), with most countries with educational penalties refusing school enrollment until vaccination requirements are met (81%; n = 35).ConclusionWe undertook a comprehensive assessment of national mandatory vaccination policies and identified a diversity of penalties in place to promote compliance. Our results highlight the need to critically evaluate the implementation of non-compliance penalties in order to determine their effectiveness and to define best practices for sustaining high vaccination uptake worldwide.

Dataset Information

Reactance revisited: Consequences of mandatory and scarce vaccination in the case of COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets