To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? The interplay between pro- and against- vaccination reasons.

BACKGROUND: By mid 2023, European countries reached 75% of vaccine coverage for COVID-19 and although vaccination rates are quite high, many people are still hesitant. A plethora of studies have investigated factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, however, insufficient attention has been paid to the reasons why people get vaccinated against COVID-19. Our work aims to investigate the role of reasons in the decision to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in a representative sample of 1,689 adult Italians (March-April 2021) balanced in terms of age, gender, educational level and area of residence. METHODS: Through an online questionnaire, we asked participants to freely report up to three reasons for and against COVID-19 vaccination, and the weight each had in the decision to get vaccinated. We first investigated the role of emotional competence and COVID-19 risk perception in the generation of both reasons using regression models. Next, we studied the role that the different reasons had in the vaccination decision, considering both the intention to vaccinate (using a beta regression model) and the decision made by the participants who already had the opportunity to get vaccinated (using a logistic regression model). Finally, two different classification tree analyses were carried out to characterize profiles with a low or high willingness to get vaccinated or with a low or high probability to accept/book the vaccine. RESULTS: High emotional competence positively influences the generation of both reasons (ORs > 1.5), whereas high risk perception increases the generation of positive reasons (ORs > 1.4) while decreasing reasons against vaccination (OR = 0.64). As pro-reasons increase, vaccination acceptance increases, while the opposite happens as against-reasons increase (all p < 0.001). One strong reason in favor of vaccines is enough to unbalance the decision toward acceptance of vaccination, even when reasons against it are also present (p < 0.001). Protection and absence of distrust are the reasons that mostly drive willingness to be vaccinated and acceptance of an offered vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the reasons that drive people's decision about such an important choice can suggest new communication insights to reduce possible negative reactions toward vaccination and people's hesitancy. Results are discussed considering results of other national and international studies.

Who is likely to vacillate in their COVID-19 vaccination decision? Free-riding intention and post-positive reluctance.

Despite the actual availability of COVID-19 vaccines to combat the pandemic, many people are still vacillating in their decision to vaccinate. In this study, we considered the effect of two relevant contextual issues on vaccination intention: the number of people infected with COVID-19 is increasing, and the pace of vaccination is gaining speed. Specifically, we hypothesized that having already contracted SARS-CoV-2 (post-positive reluctance) could lead people to underestimate the importance of vaccination. Moreover, as the number of vaccinated people increases, more hesitant people could fall into the free-riding intention category, benefitting from the immunity provided by others' vaccinations. Vaccine hesitancy becomes more critical as the vaccination campaign proceeds: at one point, it will be inevitable to deal with hesitant people. This study is part of a WHO Regional Office for Europe project and involved a representative sample of 5006 Italians interviewed in January-February 2021. In case of post-positive reluctance, both young age and female gender increase vaccine hesitancy, while a high level of education reduces free-riding intention. Considering post-positive reluctance and free riding, a protective effect on hesitancy is associated with negative affective states, adherence to protective behaviors, trust in health information sources, and resilience. In contrast, increased vaccine hesitancy is associated with a high level of conspiracy-mindedness and trust in media information sources. Recognizing and studying the post-positive reluctance and the phenomenon of free-riding people can help us to become more efficient in combatting the virus.

A Psychological Perspective on Factors Predicting Prophylactic Salpingo-Oophorectomy in a Sample of Italian Women from the General Population. Results from a Hypothetical Study in the Context of BRCA Mutations.

The aim of this study was to assess attitudes toward ovarian cancer risk management options for BRCA mutation carriers in healthy Italian women, and to identify predictors of the preference for risk reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) over surveillance. One hundred eighty-one women aged 30-45 completed a questionnaire about preferences, knowledge, risk perception, and socio-demographic information. Participants were randomly presented with a pamphlet about BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-specific testing, consequences of testing and preventive options for carriers, and they were stratified by having children or not and by age group. Surveillance was the preferred option (64.6%), followed by RRSO (24.3%). Although RRSO is the only effective strategy available to BRCA carriers, most healthy women faced for the first time with this option may not consider it as their preferred choice. Predictors associated with a higher likelihood to prefer surgery over surveillance were: knowing that life expectancy is longer with surgery, perceived comprehension of the consequences of testing, previous knowledge about BRCA testing, anticipated worry about developing cancer, and feelings of risk. Childbearing intentions and the effect of childbearing intentions on choice were associated with a lower preference for surgery. Further research is needed to confirm the role of the factors identified in this study in order to promote informed decision-making about RRSO.

The Interplay of Perceived Risks and Benefits in Deciding to Become Vaccinated against COVID-19 While Pregnant or Breastfeeding: A Cross-Sectional Study in Italy.

The present study examined the role of the perception of risks and benefits for the mother and her babies in deciding about the COVID-19 vaccination. In this cross-sectional study, five hypotheses were tested using data from a convenience sample of Italian pregnant and/or breastfeeding women (N = 1104, July-September 2021). A logistic regression model estimated the influence of the predictors on the reported behavior, and a beta regression model was used to evaluate which factors influenced the willingness to become vaccinated among unvaccinated women. The COVID-19 vaccination overall risks/benefits tradeoff was highly predictive of both behavior and intention. Ceteris paribus, an increase in the perception of risks for the baby weighed more against vaccination than a similar increase in the perception of risks for the mother. Additionally, pregnant women resulted in being less likely (or willing) to be vaccinated in their status than breastfeeding women, but they were equally accepting of vaccination if they were not pregnant. COVID-19 risk perception predicted intention to become vaccinated, but not behavior. In conclusion, the overall risks/benefits tradeoff is key in predicting vaccination behavior and intention, but the concerns for the baby weigh more than those for the mother in the decision, shedding light on this previously neglected aspect.

Are You Willing to Protect the Health of Older People? Intergenerational Contact and Ageism as Predictors of Attitudes toward the COVID-19 Vaccination Passport.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the vulnerability of older people to COVID-19 has been stressed in political discourse and the mass media, with the call to protect older adults. Therefore, policies aimed at reducing the spread of coronavirus, such as the COVID-19 vaccination passport policy, might be perceived as policies aimed at preserving the health of older people, and negative attitudes toward older people (i.e., ageism) might underlie negative attitudes toward such policies. While intergenerational contact is one of the main antecedents of reduced ageism, the pandemic has forced people to separate, and direct intergenerational contact in particular might have been reduced, possibly being replaced by telephone and virtual contact. In a correlational study (N = 153 Italian university students) we found that quantity and quality of direct intergenerational contact diminished during the pandemic. Virtual intergenerational contact was unexpectedly less frequent than direct contact. Quality of direct contact before the pandemic was associated, over and above the effects of other contact forms under investigation, with reduced ageism, which was in turn associated with negative attitude toward the vaccination passport. Findings will be discussed focusing on the roles of intergenerational contact and ageism for public health.

Joint analysis of the intention to vaccinate and to use contact tracing app during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological measures will overlap for a period after the onset of the pandemic, playing a strong role in virus containment. We explored which factors influence the likelihood to adopt two different preventive measures against the COVID-19 pandemic. An online snowball sampling (May-June 2020) collected a total of 448 questionnaires in Italy. A Bayesian bivariate Gaussian regression model jointly investigated the willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and to download the national contact tracing app. A mixed-effects cumulative logistic model explored which factors affected the motivation to adopt one of the two preventive measures. Despite both COVID-19 vaccines and tracing apps being indispensable tools to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, our results suggest that adherence to the vaccine or to the national contact tracing app is not predicted by the same factors. Therefore, public communication on these measures needs to take in consideration not only the perceived risk associated with COVID-19, but also the trust people place in politics and science, their concerns and doubts about vaccinations, and their employment status. Further, the results suggest that the motivation to comply with these measurements was predominantly to protect others rather than self-protection.

People's perspectives about COVID-19 vaccination certificate: Findings from a representative Italian sample.

In Italy, like in other countries, issues still exist regarding how to reach high vaccine coverage and several countries have considered policies to increase vaccine uptake. In the present study, we focused on people who have a favorable attitude towards vaccination. In March-April 2021, we asked a representative sample of Italian participants (N = 1,530) to assess to what extent they would support the adoption of a COVID-19 vaccination certificate, excluding unvaccinated people from participating in public and cultural events. Furthermore, as the vaccination coverage increases, severe forms of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization more likely involve unvaccinated individuals, who might be perceived as those who don't contribute to ending the pandemic and who constitute a significant health cost for society. We then asked participants to assess to what extent they would favor the idea of requiring people who refuse the vaccine to pay for their own medical expenses in case of hospitalization. We hypothesized that support for the adoption of the vaccination certificate would be predicted by the COVID-19 vaccination status (received, booked, high-, medium-, low-willingness to be vaccinated, or refused) and by the same factors that are known to affect the willingness to get vaccinated. These factors were also tested in a model aimed at investigating if a vaccinated person would favor a measure requiring the unvaccinated individuals to pay for medical expenses. Results confirmed that the support towards the vaccination certificate policy was strongly predicted by the vaccination status and by factors known to affect the willingness to get vaccinated. Interestingly (and surprisingly), a similar pattern was observed for the support of the policy about medical expenses. In conclusion, support for a COVID-19 vaccination certificate was high among the Italian population in the early phases of the vaccination rollout. The findings are discussed considering potential policies to tackle the pandemic.

Psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy assessed in a four-waves survey.

COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on the mental health and well-being (WB) of citizens. This cross-sectional study included 4 waves of data collection aimed at identifying profiles of individuals with different levels of WB. The study included a representative stratified sample of 10,013 respondents in Italy. The WHO 5-item well-being scale (WHO-5) was used for the assessment of WB. Different supervised machine learning approaches (multinomial logistic regression, partial least-square discriminant analysis-PLS-DA-, classification tree-CT-) were applied to identify individual characteristics with different WB scores, first in waves 1-2 and, subsequently, in waves 3 and 4. Forty-one percent of participants reported "Good WB", 30% "Poor WB", and 28% "Depression". Findings carried out using multinomial logistic regression show that Resilience was the most important variable able for discriminating the WB across all waves. Through the PLS-DA, Increased Unhealthy Behaviours proved to be the more important feature in the first two waves, while Financial Situation gained most relevance in the last two. COVID-19 Perceived Risk was relevant, but less than the other variables, across all waves. Interestingly, using the CT we were able to establish a cut-off for Resilience (equal to 4.5) that discriminated good WB with a probability of 65% in wave 4. Concluding, we found that COVID-19 had negative implications for WB. Governments should support evidence-based strategies considering factors that influence WB (i.e., Resilience, Perceived Risk, Healthy Behaviours, and Financial Situation).

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Italy: Predictors of Acceptance, Fence Sitting and Refusal of the COVID-19 Vaccination.

Background: The hesitancy in taking the COVID-19 vaccine is a global challenge. The need to identify predictors of COVID-19 vaccine reluctance is critical. Our objectives were to evaluate sociodemographic, psychological, and behavioral factors, as well as attitudes and beliefs that influence COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the general population of Italy. Methods: A total of 2,015 people were assessed in two waves (March, April and May, 2021). Participants were divided into three groups: (1) individuals who accepted the vaccination ("accepters"); (2) individuals who refused the vaccination ("rejecters"); and (3) individuals who were uncertain about their attitudes toward the vaccination ("fence sitters"). Group comparisons were performed using ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square tests. The strength of the association between the groups and the participants' characteristics was analyzed using a series of multinomial logistic regression models with bootstrap internal validation (one for each factor). Results: The "fence sitters" group, when compared to the others, included individuals of younger age, lower educational level, and worsening economic situation in the previous 3 months. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, the following features emerged as the main risk factors for being "fence sitters" (compared with vaccine "accepters"): reporting lower levels of protective behaviors, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and higher conspirative mentality. Higher levels of COVID-19 perceived risk, trust in institutions and informational sources, frequency of use of informational sources, agreement with restrictions and protective behaviors were associated with a higher likelihood of becoming "fence sitters" rather than vaccine "rejecters." Conclusions: The "fence sitters" profile revealed by this study is intriguing and should be the focus of public programmes aimed at improving adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.

Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents.

RATIONALE: Many countries were and are still struggling with the COVID-19 emergency. Despite efforts to limit the viral transmission, the vaccine is the only solution to ending the pandemic. However, vaccine hesitancy could reduce coverage and hinder herd immunity. OBJECTIVE: People's intention to get vaccinated can be shaped by several factors, including risk perception which, in turn, is influenced by affect. The present work aimed at investigating how risk perception and some factors associated with the decision to comply with vaccination modulated vaccine acceptance for COVID-19 as compared to seasonal influenza, and how these have varied during the lockdown phases. METHOD: The study followed the main phases of the emergency in Italy, investigating the intention to get vaccinated against flu and against SARS-CoV-2 (if a vaccine was available) before, during and after the first national lockdown, covering the period from the end of February to the end of June 2020. We investigated the effect of risk perception and other predictors on the decision of getting vaccinated. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-lockdown phase, during the lockdown more people were willing to get vaccinated for COVID-19, regardless of their beliefs about vaccines, and as risk perception increased, so did the intention to accept the vaccine. The acceptance of the flu vaccine increased after the re-opening phase. In addition, the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 and against flu increased if there was previous flu vaccination behavior but decreased with increasing doubts about the vaccines in general. CONCLUSIONS: The observation of vaccination intentions across the three main phases of the emergency allows important considerations regarding psychological, affect, and demographic determinants useful to tailor public health communication to improve public response to future epidemics.

The Role of Emotional Competences in Parents' Vaccine Hesitancy.

The role of parents' emotional competencies on vaccine hesitancy and decision making has been seldom examined. Two studies investigated the relationship between parents' attitudes towards childhood vaccines and self-reported behavior (Study 1) and between parents' emotional competence and attitudes towards vaccines (Study 2). In Study 1, predictors of temporal, partial, or complete vaccine refusal (having voluntarily postponed/forgone some/all vaccines) were examined in 2778 parents. In Study 2, psychological predictors of the attitude towards vaccines were examined in 593 parents, using the Profile of Emotional Competence and the valence of mental images spontaneously associated with the term "vaccine". In Study 1, attitudes were aggregated in three independent factors (concerns about vaccine safety; diseases prevented by vaccines; and naturalistic views) that independently predicted vaccine refusal. In Study 2, a significant mediational analysis showed a positive indirect effect of intrapersonal emotional competences on attitudes towards vaccines, through mental images associated with the word "vaccine". Parents' intrapersonal emotional competences affected all dimensions of attitudes towards vaccines, suggesting that being able to manage, identify, and recognize one's own emotions is central to vaccine acceptance. These findings suggest that intervention strategies, rather than stressing the pro-social benefits of vaccinating, should focus on aspects related to one's own emotions.

Are young women ready for BRCA testing? Comparing attitudes and comprehension of two age groups of healthy Italian women.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the BRCA 1/2 genes increase the risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer compared with the general population. However, the risk is low at age 30, and for women younger than 25, no preventive or screening options are available. Scientists wonder whether genetic predictive BRCA testing is appropriate at a very young age. Furthermore, although young women have positive attitudes toward testing, their understanding of genetic information seems scarce. OBJECTIVE: To assess how young (18-24) versus adult (30-45) women at general population- level risk understand information about BRCA testing. METHODS: 302 women read an informative pamphlet and answered an ad-hoc questionnaire assessing usefulness of the information for decision making, intention to undergo predictive testing, and comprehension (perceived, general, and risk comprehension; open-ended questions). RESULTS: Younger women had a lower comprehension of important BRCA information; it was more difficult for young women to identify the risk figures of cancer, and they showed errors when answering open-ended questions. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by the study's hypothetical nature. CONCLUSIONS: Young women seem to have particular difficulty understanding BRCA information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Counsellors should be aware of the difficulties young women have in understanding information about BRCA predictive testing.

Will I Regret It? Anticipated Negative Emotions Modulate Choices in Moral Dilemmas.

We tested if post-decisional emotions of regret, guilt, shame, anger, and disgust can account for individuals' choices in moral dilemmas depicting the choice of letting some people die (non-utilitarian option) or sacrificing one person to save them (utilitarian option). We collected participants' choices and post-decisional emotional ratings for each option using Footbridge-type dilemmas, in which the sacrifice of one person is the means to save more people, and Trolley-type dilemmas, in which the sacrifice is only a side effect. Moreover, we computed the EEG Readiness Potential to test if the neural activity related to the last phase of decision-making was related to the emotional conflict. Participants reported generally stronger emotions for the utilitarian as compared to the non-utilitarian options, with the exception of anger and regret, which in Trolley-type dilemmas were stronger for the non-utilitarian option. Moreover, participants tended to choose the option that minimized the intensity of negative emotions, irrespective of dilemma type. No significant relationship between emotions and the amplitude of the Readiness Potential emerged. It is possible that anticipated post-decisional emotions play a role in earlier stages of decision-making.

The Vineland-II in Preschool Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: An Item Content Category Analysis.

We investigated which item subsets of the Vineland-II can discriminate low-functioning preschoolers with ASD from matched peers with other neurodevelopmental disorders, using a regression analysis derived from a normative sample to account for cognitive and linguistic competencies. At variance with the typical profile, a pattern with Communication more impaired than Socialization was observed. The source of the frequently reported Socialization delay in ASD appears to be in Playing and Imitating skills only, not in other social adaptive behavior skills. The combination of item subsets Playing, Following instructions, Beginning to talk, and Speech skills provided the best discrimination between the two clinical groups. Evaluation of the Vineland-II score on item content categories is a useful procedure for a more efficient clinical description.