Charlotte Anraad1, Birthe A Lehmann2, Olga Visser3, Pepijn van Empelen4, Theo G W Paulussen4, Robert A C Ruiter5, Laura Kamp6, Nicoline A T van der Maas6, Daantje Barug6, Wilhelmina L M Ruijs6, Hester E de Melker6, Liesbeth Mollema6, Hilde M van Keulen4. 1. Department of Work & Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands; TNO Child Health, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, P.O. Box 3005, 2316 ZL Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: charlotte.anraad@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Department of Persuasive Communication, Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, 1001 NH, Amsterdam. 3. Radboud University Medical Centre (UMC), P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 4. TNO Child Health, Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, P.O. Box 3005, 2316 ZL Leiden, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Work & Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands. 6. Center for Infectious Disease Control, Epidemiology and Surveillance, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maternal Pertussis Vaccination (MPV) during pregnancy became part of the National Immunization Program in the Netherlands late 2019. This study aims to identify social-psychological factors associated with MPV acceptance among Dutch women to add to the current understanding of vaccine hesitancy worldwide, and to inform the development of communication and information campaigns about MPV. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using an online survey among 611 women (174 pregnant women, 205 women who had given birth in the past two years and 232 women of 20-35 years old). The primary and secondary outcomes were vaccination intention and attitude towards MPV, respectively. Pearson's correlation and regression analyses were used to examine social-psychological and socio-demographic determinants of the outcomes. RESULTS: Vaccination intention was most explained by attitudes towards MPV, beliefs about safety, moral norm and the belief about the effectiveness of MPV (R2 = 0.79). Other factors associated were injunctive norm, anticipated regret of vaccinating, and decisional certainty. Attitudes towards MPV were further explained by descriptive norm, risk perceptions of side effects, and risk perceptions of the baby getting pertussis when not vaccinating, and fear of MPV and of the disease (R2 = 0.76). Finally, pregnant women had a significantly lower intention and less positive attitude towards MPV than non-pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: Communication about MPV should address the most important determinants of MPV intention and attitude, i.e. beliefs about safety and effectiveness and moral norms. Furthermore, such information may benefit from taking into account affective feelings of pregnant women such as anticipated regret and fear towards MPV. Further research could explore this. The timing of communication about MPV can be important as determinants of MPV acceptance may vary depending on pregnancy status.
BACKGROUND: Maternal Pertussis Vaccination (MPV) during pregnancy became part of the National Immunization Program in the Netherlands late 2019. This study aims to identify social-psychological factors associated with MPV acceptance among Dutch women to add to the current understanding of vaccine hesitancy worldwide, and to inform the development of communication and information campaigns about MPV. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using an online survey among 611 women (174 pregnant women, 205 women who had given birth in the past two years and 232 women of 20-35 years old). The primary and secondary outcomes were vaccination intention and attitude towards MPV, respectively. Pearson's correlation and regression analyses were used to examine social-psychological and socio-demographic determinants of the outcomes. RESULTS: Vaccination intention was most explained by attitudes towards MPV, beliefs about safety, moral norm and the belief about the effectiveness of MPV (R2 = 0.79). Other factors associated were injunctive norm, anticipated regret of vaccinating, and decisional certainty. Attitudes towards MPV were further explained by descriptive norm, risk perceptions of side effects, and risk perceptions of the baby getting pertussis when not vaccinating, and fear of MPV and of the disease (R2 = 0.76). Finally, pregnant women had a significantly lower intention and less positive attitude towards MPV than non-pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: Communication about MPV should address the most important determinants of MPV intention and attitude, i.e. beliefs about safety and effectiveness and moral norms. Furthermore, such information may benefit from taking into account affective feelings of pregnant women such as anticipated regret and fear towards MPV. Further research could explore this. The timing of communication about MPV can be important as determinants of MPV acceptance may vary depending on pregnancy status.
Authors: Maarten M Immink; Mireille N Bekker; Hester E de Melker; Nynke Y Rots; Elisabeth A M Sanders; Nicoline A T van der Maas Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2021-09-03 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Mohammed Al-Kafarna; Sajeda Ghassan Matar; Hossam Waleed Almadhoon; Bashar Khaled Almaghary; Mohamed Sayed Zaazouee; Asmaa Ahmed Elrashedy; Dalia Sami Wafi; Sami D Jabari; Omar H Salloum; Eman Ahmed Ibrahim; Hala Zi Alagha; Elfatih A Hasabo Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 3.295