4.3 Article

Factors That Shape People's Attitudes towards the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany-The Influence of MEDIA, Politics and Personal Characteristics

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18157772

关键词

fake news; social media; survey; vaccination; SARS-CoV-2; risk perception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the majority of German participants perceived SARS-CoV-2 as a health threat, with nearly two-thirds expressing willingness to receive a vaccine. Factors associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination intention included being male, left-wing voting, trusting health authorities, using public media for COVID-19 information, and perceiving COVID-19 as a health threat.
Misinformation that accompanied the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to an impaired risk perception, resulting in the refusal of personal protection measures, as well as a reduced willingness to receive a vaccination. In order to identify factors that might influence people's attitudes towards COVID-19 policies and engagement in mitigation measures, we carried out a cross-sectional study in Germany. Altogether, n = 808 participants completed our questionnaire concerning items on demographics, media consumption, risk perception, and trust in health authorities, as well as willingness to receive a vaccination. An overwhelming majority of our participants perceived SARS-CoV-2 as a health threat (85.7%), and almost two thirds (63.5%) mentioned they would get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 when a vaccination was available. A greater likelihood of vaccination intention was associated with being male (71.5% male vs. 60% female, p < 0.05), left-wing voting, trusting health authorities, using public media as an information source about COVID-19, and, in particular, perceiving COVID-19 as a health threat. A better understanding of factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy is indispensable in order to eliminate doubts, increase vaccination rates, and create herd immunity, to stop further virus transmission.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据