Improving older adults’ vaccination uptake: are existing measures of vaccine hesitancy valid and reliable for older people?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Older adults are particularly vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases (VDU), due to decreased immunity and increased comorbidity. Vaccination can support healthy ageing and help reduce morbidity, mortality, and loss of quality of life associated with VPDs. Despite the availability of effective vaccines, many countries, including the UK, fail to reach recommended coverage levels. Psychosocial factors are recognised as providing important insights into the determinants of vaccination uptake. Little research has sought to establish psychometrically sound scales of vaccine attitudes with older adults. In the present study, a total of 372 UK-based participants (65-92 years, M = 70.5 yrs, SD = 4.6) completed a cross-sectional, online survey measuring health and socio-demographic characteristics in relation to vaccination uptake for influenza, pneumococcal and shingles. Two recently developed vaccination attitude scales, the 5C scale and the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale, were also administered to test their reliability and validity for use with an older adult population. Additional scales used to examine convergent and discriminant validity, the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire, the Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines Scale, the Medical Mistrust Index, the Perceived Stress Scale, and the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, were included. The factor structure of the 5C and VAX scales was confirmed. Both scales showed good internal reliability, convergent, discriminant and concurrent validity, supporting their use with older adult populations. The 5C and VAX scales were found to be reliable and valid psychosocial measures of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance within a UK-based, older adult population. Future research could use these scales to evaluate the impact of psychological antecedents of vaccine uptake, and how concerns about vaccination may be understood and addressed among older adults. Ethics approval & informed consent Ethical approval (34/26/11/2019/Staff Williams) was granted by the School of Psychological Sciences and Health Ethics Committee, University of Strathclyde. (SEC19/20: Williams, Nicholls, Rasmussen, Young & Gallant). Approved on 8 th January 2020.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".