Sarathchandra Dilshani, Navin Mark C, Largent Mark A, McCright Aaron M
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 1110, Moscow, ID 83844-1110, USA.
Department of Philosophy, Oakland University, Mathematics and Science Center, Room 746, 146 Library Drive, Rochester, MI 48309-4479, USA.
Prev Med. 2018 Apr;109:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.01.006. Epub 2018 Jan 11.
Accurately measuring vaccine acceptance is important, especially under current conditions in which misinformation may increase public anxiety about vaccines and politicize vaccination policies. We integrated substantive knowledge, conceptualization and measurement expertise, and survey design principles to develop an instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance across the general public. Given this broad goal, we expect our novel instrument will complement, rather than replace, existing instruments designed specifically to measure parents' vaccine hesitancy. Our instrument measures five key facets of vaccine acceptance: (1) perceived safety of vaccines; (2) perceived effectiveness and necessity of vaccines; (3) acceptance of the selection and scheduling of vaccines; (4) positive values and affect toward vaccines; and (5) perceived legitimacy of authorities to require vaccinations. We report results of analyses demonstrating the reliability and validity of this instrument. High Cronbach's alpha values for five sub-scales and for the full scale indicate the instrument's reliability, and the consistent performance of expected predictors (i.e., trust in biologists, conspiratorial ideation, and political ideology) demonstrates the instrument's construct validity. Further, scientific reasoning increases vaccine acceptance among liberals but decreases vaccine acceptance among conservatives, which is consistent with motivated cognition. Also, trust in biologists has a stronger positive effect on vaccine acceptance among conservatives than among liberals, signaling a potentially promising means to reduce political polarization on vaccines and increase vaccine acceptance across the general public. We end by identifying key ways that public health researchers, science studies scholars, and health practitioners may employ the full (or short) version of our vaccine acceptance instrument.
准确衡量疫苗接受度很重要，尤其是在当前错误信息可能加剧公众对疫苗的焦虑并使疫苗接种政策政治化的情况下。我们整合了专业知识、概念化与测量专业技能以及调查设计原则，以开发一种用于衡量普通公众疫苗接受度的工具。鉴于这一广泛目标，我们预计我们的新型工具将补充而非取代专门设计用于衡量家长疫苗犹豫程度的现有工具。我们的工具衡量疫苗接受度的五个关键方面：（1）对疫苗安全性的认知；（2）对疫苗有效性和必要性的认知；（3）对疫苗选择和接种计划的接受度；（4）对疫苗的积极价值观和情感；（5）对当局要求接种疫苗合法性的认知。我们报告了分析结果，证明了该工具的可靠性和有效性。五个子量表和总量表的高克朗巴哈系数值表明了该工具的可靠性，预期预测因素（即对生物学家的信任、阴谋论思维和政治意识形态）的一致表现证明了该工具的结构效度。此外，科学推理会提高自由派的疫苗接受度，但会降低保守派 的疫苗接受度，这与动机性认知一致。而且，对生物学家的信任对保守派疫苗接受度的积极影响比对自由派更强，这表明这可能是减少疫苗问题上的政治两极分化并提高普通公众疫苗接受度的一种有潜力的方法。最后我们确定了公共卫生研究人员、科学研究学者和健康从业者可以使用我们疫苗接受度工具完整（或简短）版本的关键方式。
