Adherence to national and international vaccine information sources and future pandemic preparedness among Iranian adults in the post-COVID-19 era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of public health efforts and vaccination campaigns depends on the level of trust that the population has, which in turn depends on the population's confidence in health information sources and organizations. This study aims to assess post-pandemic compliance with vaccine information sources and their influence on future pandemic preparedness in Iran and to identify the underlying factors related to adherence. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire among Iranian adults in 2024. The instrument used in this study was rooted in the Health Belief Model and the 3 C Model of Vaccine Hesitancy, and was developed according to previous literature, objectives of the study, and inputs from experts in this field. Validity and reliability of the questionnaire were further evaluated using face, content and construct validity, and Cronbach's alpha. We applied multiple linear regression to identify independent predictors of compliance with national and international vaccination guidelines and future pandemic preparedness. RESULTS: Among 457 Iranian adults who participated in our study, approximately 75% reported favorable attitudes toward adherence to vaccination guidelines and pandemic preparedness. Mean adherence scores were higher for international (4.06 ± 0.76) than for national (3.81 ± 0.81) vaccination guidelines. Multiple linear regression revealed that trust in health authorities, favorable vaccine perceptions, and self-efficacy were the strongest predictors of adherence to both national and international vaccination guidelines. Notably, trust in national health authorities was negatively associated with adherence to international vaccination guidelines (B: -0.137, 95% CI: -0.198 -0.076). In addition, individuals with a personal or family history of COVID-19 scored significantly higher in adherence to international vaccination guidelines by an average of 0.31 points (95% CI: 0.11-0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Enhancing vaccine perceptions, trust in health organizations, and self-efficacy improves public compliance and pandemic preparedness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".