IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i11p5919-d1153298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions and Intentions around Uptake of the COVID-19 Vaccination among Older People: A Mixed-Methods Study in Phuket Province, Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Chayanit Luevanich

    (Public Health Program, Faculty of Science and Technology, Phuket Rajabhat University, Phuket 83000, Thailand)

  • Ros Kane

    (School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK)

  • Aimon Naklong

    (Teaching Profession Department, Faculty of Education, Phuket Rajabhat University, Phuket 83000, Thailand)

  • Prapaipim Surachetkomson

    (Science and Mathematics Program, Faculty of Science and Technology, Phuket Rajabhat University, Phuket 83000, Thailand)

Abstract

Background: A 70% vaccination rate against COVID-19 in the general population was required for re-opening Phuket tourist industry. However, prior to this research, 39.61% of older people remained unvaccinated. This study aimed to examine perceptions and intentions around COVID-19 vaccination amongst older people and to explore the reasons and factors influencing their decisions to receive or refuse vaccination. Methods: This was a mixed-methods approach with a sequential explanatory design. We conducted an online survey and semi-structured qualitative interview with a subsample. Multinomial logistic regression was applied and thematic content analysis was conducted. Results: 92.4% of participants reported intention to receive the vaccine. Multinomial regression analysis revealed that perceived barriers (AdjOR = 0.032; 95% CI: 0.17–0.59), perceived benefit (AdjOR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.49–4.71), good health (AdjOR = 3.51; 95% CI: 1.01–12.12) and health not good (AdjOR = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.02–0.49) were predictors of vaccine uptake. In the qualitative interviews, four key influences on up-take for the 28 vaccinated participants were: prevention and protection, convenience, fear of death from COVID-19, and trust in the vaccine. Four key influences on refusal of vaccination in the eight unvaccinated participants were: rarely leaving the house, fear of vaccine side-effects, fear of death after getting the vaccine, and not enough information for decision-making. Conclusion: Intervention and campaigns addressing COVID-19 vaccination should employ strategies, including the widespread use of social and other popular media to increase older people’s perceived benefit of vaccination on their current and future health status, while decreasing perceived barriers to receiving the vaccine.

Suggested Citation

  • Chayanit Luevanich & Ros Kane & Aimon Naklong & Prapaipim Surachetkomson, 2023. "Perceptions and Intentions around Uptake of the COVID-19 Vaccination among Older People: A Mixed-Methods Study in Phuket Province, Thailand," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(11), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:11:p:5919-:d:1153298
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/11/5919/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/11/5919/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Becker, M.H. & Drachman, R.H. & Kirscht, J.P., 1974. "A new approach to explaining sick-role behavior in low-income populations," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 64(3), pages 205-216.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adero Gaudin & Ronda Jackson & Patricia Quinlan & Maureen George, 2023. "Spine Surgery Patients’ Perceptions of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(4), pages 797-804, May.
    2. Xie, Jipan & Dow, William H., 2005. "Longitudinal study of child immunization determinants in China," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 601-611, August.
    3. I‐Hui Chen & Shih‐Min Hsu & Jiunn‐Shyan Julian Wu & Yu‐Tsang Wang & Yen‐Kuang Lin & Min‐Huey Chung & Pin‐Hsuan Huang & Nae‐Fang Miao, 2019. "Determinants of nurses’ willingness to receive vaccines: Application of the health belief model," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(19-20), pages 3430-3440, October.
    4. Do Hwa Byun & Rho Soon Chang & Myung-Bae Park & Hyo-Rim Son & Chun-Bae Kim, 2021. "Prioritizing Community-Based Intervention Programs for Improving Treatment Compliance of Patients with Chronic Diseases: Applying an Analytic Hierarchy Process," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-20, January.
    5. Natsuko Tabata & Mai Tsukada & Kozue Kubo & Yuri Inoue & Reiko Miroku & Fumihiko Odashima & Koichiro Shiratori & Takashi Sekiya & Shintaro Sengoku & Hideaki Shiroyama & Hiromichi Kimura, 2022. "Living Lab for Citizens’ Wellness: A Case of Maintaining and Improving a Healthy Diet under the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    6. Vadivelu Thusyanthy, 2018. "Health Consciousness and Brand Equity in the Carbonated Soft Drink Industry in Sri Lanka," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(3), pages 188-188, February.
    7. Tomoko Haraoka & Toshiyuki Ojima & Chiyoe Murata & Shinya Hayasaka, 2012. "Factors Influencing Collaborative Activities between Non-Professional Disaster Volunteers and Victims of Earthquake Disasters," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(10), pages 1-8, October.
    8. Sweetness Jabulile Makamu-Beteck & Sarah Johannah Moss & Francois Gerald Watson & Melainie Cameron, 2022. "Exercise Intervention Changes the Perceptions and Knowledge of Non-Communicable Disease Risk Factors among Women from a Low-Resourced Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-16, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:11:p:5919-:d:1153298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.