"I Don't Need a Flu Shot Because I Lead a Healthy Lifestyle": Compensatory Health Beliefs Make Vaccination Less Likely.

Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Journal of Health Psychology (Impact Factor: 1.88). 09/2012; 18(6). DOI: 10.1177/1359105312455076
Source: PubMed


Compensatory health beliefs, a self-defence strategy, were examined in a theory-guided intervention promoting influenza vaccination at the workplace. In total, 851 employees were randomised to one group aimed at enhancing intention formation (standard group) or to another one assisting self-regulation (intervention group). Assessments took place after the intervention and 5 months later, investigating whether the intervention would interfere with compensatory health beliefs. The intervention generated an indirect effect via planning on vaccination. Compensatory health beliefs mediated between intention and behaviour. An interaction between intervention group and compensatory health beliefs on behaviour transpired. At low compensatory health belief levels, the intervention group resulted in more vaccinations than the standard group.

21 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: In the context of worksite influenza vaccination programmes, social support, action planning and perceived self-efficacy were examined as predictors of participation. Mechanisms among these predictors were analysed by applying the enabling effect model to vaccination. Moreover, this model was extended by the inclusion of planning. Methods: In a large German company, a survey on influenza vaccination was launched with 200 employees taking part in the five-month follow-up. Using regression procedures, a sequential mediation model was examined, leading from social support via self-efficacy and planning to vaccination behaviour. Results: The three predictors jointly accounted for 47% of the vaccination participation variance. The enabling effect model was confirmed, highlighting how social support may promote self-efficacy beliefs. Further analysis yielded the extended model, revealing planning as a mediator between self-efficacy and subsequent behaviour while the indirect path from social support via self-efficacy to behaviour remained. Conclusions: Multiple step mediation analysis underscored the relevance of social support and self-efficacy. It also revealed planning as a proximal factor that may facilitate participation in a worksite influenza vaccination programme.
    Psychology Health and Medicine 05/2014; 20(2):1-8. DOI:10.1080/13548506.2014.920957 · 1.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Risk perception studies have focused on personal risks; yet many decisions are taken for others. Some studies have suggested that parents are especially sensitive to risks to their children. We compared 245 parents’ willingness to vaccinate their child versus themselves in nine hypothetical scenarios relating to influenza strains. Scenarios varied according to non-vaccination risk (low, medium and high) and ‘risk target’ (oneself, one’s child or, as a comparator, one’s elderly parent). Participants were more willing to vaccinate their child (61% acceptance) than themselves (54%) or their parent (56%). Parents may be more risk-sensitive when deciding for their child than for themselves.
    Journal of Health Psychology 07/2014; DOI:10.1177/1359105314539527 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective. Describe a process for designing, building, and evaluating a theory-driven social media intervention tool to help reduce parental concerns about vaccination. Method. We developed an interactive web-based tool using quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., survey, focus groups, individual interviews, and usability testing). Results. Survey results suggested that social media may represent an effective intervention tool to help parents make informed decisions about vaccination for their children. Focus groups and interviews revealed four main themes for development of the tool: Parents wanted information describing both benefits and risks of vaccination, transparency of sources of information, moderation of the tool by an expert, and ethnic and racial diversity in the visual display of people. Usability testing showed that parents were satisfied with the usability of the tool but had difficulty with performing some of the informational searches. Based on focus groups, interviews, and usability evaluations, we made additional revisions to the tool's content, design, functionality, and overall look and feel. Conclusion. Engaging parents at all stages of development is critical when designing a tool to address concerns about childhood vaccines. Although this can be both resource- and time-intensive, the redesigned tool is more likely to be accepted and used by parents. Next steps involve a formal evaluation through a randomized trial. © 2014 Society for Public Health Education.
    Health Education & Behavior 11/2014; 42(3). DOI:10.1177/1090198114557129 · 2.23 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications