4.5 Article

Parents with high levels of communicative and critical health literacy are less likely to vaccinate their children

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 100, 期 4, 页码 768-775

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.11.016

关键词

Childhood vaccinations; Perception of control; Autonomy in decision-making

资金

  1. Israel National Institute for Health Policy Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the relationship between parents' health literacy and decision-making regarding child vaccinations. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 731 parents of children aged 3-4 years. Functional, communicative, and critical health literacy (HL), knowledge, beliefs, reliability of the vaccine's information resources, and vaccine's attitudes were measured. Attitudes included three types: pro-vaccine attitudes, anti-vaccine attitudes, and attitudes regarding mandatory vaccination. Path analysis was conducted to explore direct and indirect associations of compliance with childhood vaccinations and HL. Results: Communicative HL has a significant negative direct association with compliance with vaccinations (beta = - 0.06, p < 0.05). High functional and critical HL have significant negative indirect associations with vaccinations through parents' attitudes regarding vaccines. Higher levels of perception of reliability of informal information resources are associated with non-compliance. Conclusions: The results indicate that parents with high functional, communicative, and critical HL are more at risk of not vaccinating their children. The results are contrary to expectations in which people with high HL adopt more positive health behaviors. Practical implications: Public health professionals may need more sophisticated communication methods to transfer messages regarding vaccines to parents in order to prevent decline in vaccine coverage rates, taking into account levels of trust and health literacy. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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