IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0068019.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Different Risk Perception Measures in Predicting Seasonal Influenza Vaccination among Healthy Chinese Adults in Hong Kong: A Prospective Longitudinal Study

Author

Listed:
  • Qiuyan Liao
  • Wing Sze Wong
  • Richard Fielding

Abstract

Background: Risk perception is a reported predictor of vaccination uptake, but which measures of risk perception best predict influenza vaccination uptake remain unclear. Methodology: During the main influenza seasons (between January and March) of 2009 (Wave 1) and 2010 (Wave 2),505 Chinese students and employees from a Hong Kong university completed an online survey. Multivariate logistic regression models were conducted to assess how well different risk perceptions measures in Wave 1 predicted vaccination uptake against seasonal influenza in Wave 2. Principal Findings: The results of the multivariate logistic regression models showed that feeling at risk (β = 0.25, p = 0.021) was the better predictor compared with probability judgment while probability judgment (β = 0.25, p = 0.029 ) was better than beliefs about risk in predicting subsequent influenza vaccination uptake. Beliefs about risk and feeling at risk seemed to predict the same aspect of subsequent vaccination uptake because their associations with vaccination uptake became insignificant when paired into the logistic regression model. Similarly, to compare the four scales for assessing probability judgment in predicting vaccination uptake, the 7-point verbal scale remained a significant and stronger predictor for vaccination uptake when paired with other three scales; the 6-point verbal scale was a significant and stronger predictor when paired with the percentage scale or the 2-point verbal scale; and the percentage scale was a significant and stronger predictor only when paired with the 2-point verbal scale. Conclusions/Significance: Beliefs about risk and feeling at risk are not well differentiated by Hong Kong Chinese people. Feeling at risk, an affective-cognitive dimension of risk perception predicts subsequent vaccination uptake better than do probability judgments. Among the four scales for assessing risk probability judgment, the 7-point verbal scale offered the best predictive power for subsequent vaccination uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiuyan Liao & Wing Sze Wong & Richard Fielding, 2013. "Comparison of Different Risk Perception Measures in Predicting Seasonal Influenza Vaccination among Healthy Chinese Adults in Hong Kong: A Prospective Longitudinal Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-8, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0068019
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068019
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068019&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0068019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Qiuyan Liao & Benjamin J Cowling & Wendy Wing Tak Lam & Richard Fielding, 2011. "Factors Affecting Intention to Receive and Self-Reported Receipt of 2009 Pandemic (H1N1) Vaccine in Hong Kong: A Longitudinal Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-13, March.
    3. Marilyn M. Schapira & Susan L. Davids & Timothy L. McAuliffe & Ann B. Nattinger, 2004. "Agreement Between Scales in the Measurement of Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 665-673, June.
    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. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    3. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    5. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    7. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    8. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    9. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    10. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    11. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    13. Negin Hajizadeh & Melissa J. Basile & Andrzej Kozikowski & Meredith Akerman & Tara Liberman & Thomas McGinn & Michael A. Diefenbach, 2017. "Other Ways of Knowing," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 216-229, April.
    14. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    15. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    16. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    17. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    18. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    19. H. R. N. van Erp & R. O. Linger & P. H. A. J. M. van Gelder, 2014. "Fact Sheet Research on Bayesian Decision Theory," Papers 1409.8269, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    20. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0068019. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.