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 8th January 2020.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government [grant number CGA/19/52].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
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 8th January 2020"
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest declaration: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Data Availability
The data can be made available upon request
