4.7 Article

Acceptance, Hesitancy, and Refusal in Anti-COVID-19 Vaccination: A Cluster Analysis Aiming at the Typology behind These Three Concepts

Journal

VACCINES
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10091496

Keywords

COVID-19 vaccination; cluster analysis; behavior change; vaccine attitude; vaccine hesitancy; social norms; vaccination campaign

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study classified the Romanian public into three categories regarding attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination: pro-vaxxers, anti-vaxxers, and those without a clear opinion. Vaccine hesitancy was found in the last two clusters depending on motivation or type of hesitancy.
This paper presents the findings of a study aiming at an innovative typology of attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. The proposed typology tries to go beyond the common sociological studies who divide the public into three categories: pro-vaxxers, anti-vaxxers, and hesitants. Our purpose is obtaining a more complex typology using cluster analysis. The article is based on a nation-wide survey conducted in Romania. The sample of the survey was statistically representative to the population of Romania and was composed of 1002 participants. A k-means algorithm for classifying cases was used to identify how the studied population structures itself when it comes to attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. We see hesitancy as an expression of concern or doubt about the value or safety of the vaccination, but also as fear or dis(trust) in the authorities, or as disinterest. We found out that the Romanian public falls into three categories regarding the attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination: the non-fanatical pro-vaxxers, the anti-vaxxers, and those without a clear opinion (uninterested and/or undecided). What we usually call vaccine hesitancy can be found, depending on motivation or type of hesitancy, in both of the last two clusters.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available