Dataset Information

The Mediating Roles of Medical Mistrust, Knowledge, Confidence and Complacency of Vaccines in the Pathways from Conspiracy Beliefs to Vaccine Hesitancy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vaccine hesitancy, associated with medical mistrust, confidence, complacency and knowledge of vaccines, presents an obstacle to the campaign against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The relationship between vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy beliefs may be a key determinant of the success of vaccination campaigns. This study provides a conceptual framework to explain the impact of pathways from conspiracy beliefs to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy with regard to medical mistrust, confidence, complacency and knowledge of vaccines.

Methods

A non-probability study was conducted with 1015 respondents between 17 April and 28 May 2021. Conspiracy beliefs were measured using the coronavirus conspiracy scale of Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes, and Narratives Survey (OCEANS), and vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale. Medical mistrust was measured using the Oxford trust in doctors and developers questionnaire, and attitudes to doctors and medicine scale. Vaccine confidence and complacency were measured using the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine confidence and complacency scale. Knowledge of vaccines was measured using the vaccination knowledge scale. Vaccine hesitancy was measured using the Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the measurement models for conspiracy beliefs, medical mistrust, confidence, complacency, and knowledge of vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. The structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to analyze the direct and indirect pathways from conspiracy beliefs to vaccine hesitancy.

Results

Of the 894 (88.1%) respondents who were willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine without any hesitancy, the model fit with the CFA models for conspiracy beliefs, medical mistrust, confidence, complacency and knowledge of vaccines, and vaccine hesitancy was deemed acceptable. Conspiracy beliefs had significant direct (β = 0.294), indirect (β = 0.423) and total (β = 0.717) effects on vaccine hesitancy; 41.0% of the total effect was direct, and 59.0% was indirect. Conspiracy beliefs significantly predicted vaccine hesitancy by medical mistrust (β = 0.210), confidence and complacency (β = 0.095), knowledge (β = 0.079) of vaccines, explaining 29.3, 11.0, and 13.2% of the total effects, respectively. Conspiracy beliefs significantly predicted vaccine hesitancy through the sequential mediation of knowledge of vaccines and medical mistrust (β = 0.016), explaining 2.2% of the total effects. Conspiracy beliefs significantly predicted vaccine hesitancy through the sequential mediation of confidence and complacency, and knowledge of vaccines (β = 0.023), explaining 3.2% of the total effects. The SEM approach indicated an acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 2.464, RMSEA = 0.038, SRMR = 0.050, CFI = 0.930, IFI = 0.930).

Conclusions

The sample in this study showed lower vaccine hesitancy, and this study identified pathways from conspiracy beliefs to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in China. Conspiracy beliefs had direct and indirect effects on vaccine hesitancy, and the indirect association was determined through medical mistrust, confidence, complacency, and knowledge of vaccines. In addition, both direct and indirect pathways from conspiracy beliefs to vaccine hesitancy were identified as intervention targets to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

SUBMITTER: Zhang X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8624917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic health depends largely on people's knowledge, beliefs, or behaviors regarding their health and medical treatments. Although works based on the health belief model have shown that public beliefs about medical treatments affect willingness to take the treatments, little is known about the effects of changes in beliefs on attitudes toward treatment. How one's past experiences relate to one's beliefs about a given medical treatment is worth considering.MethodsWe implemented an online panel survey in February 2021 and March 2022 in Japan before and after COVID-19 vaccines were administered to the public within the country. We exploited delayed localized hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, namely, "COVID arm", as an exogenous shock to investigate the relationship between past negative experiences and current beliefs about medical treatments or science. "COVID arm" was an unexpected side effect and thus likely caused updated beliefs about the vaccine. Out of the nonprobability sample of 15,000 respondents in the first wave in February 2021, 9,668 respondents also responded to the second wave conducted in March 2022. Outcome variables were whether experiencing "COVID arm" affected the respondents' 1) confidence in vaccine safety, 2) willingness to take the next dose of COVID-19 vaccines, 3) acknowledgment of the importance of vaccination, and 4) confidence in science. We measured the impact of experience with "COVID arm" on changes in the probability that survey respondents would respond affirmatively to questions posed about the issues listed above.ResultsExperiencing "COVID arm" significantly lowered confidence in the safety of vaccination by 4.3 percentage points, which was approximately 6% of the sample mean for the first wave, and lowered the probability of taking a second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by 1.5 percentage points. These adverse impacts were observed after conditioning background characteristics and prior confidence in vaccination. Experiencing "COVID arm" affected neither the acknowledged importance of vaccination nor confidence in science in a statistically significant way.ConclusionsAn unexpected and uncomfortable shock regarding beliefs about a treatment decreases willingness to take the treatment. An appropriate public health policy should account for this effect.Trial registrationThe survey was preregistered with the American Economic Association's RCT Registry (Fukai et al., 2022).