Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 94, Issue 3, pp 193–196 | Cite as

University Students Immunized and not Immunized for Measles

A Comparison of Beliefs, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers and Benefits
  • Karen L. Pielak
  • Ann Hilton
Article

Abstract

Objective: To compare students who were immunized or not immunized during the 1997 Simon Fraser University measles outbreak in British Columbia.

Methods: Descriptive comparative study using the Health Belief Model as a theoretical framework. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 400 immunized and 400 non-immunized SFU students.

Results: Perceived susceptibility, severity, barriers, cues to action, threat and student age were significantly related to being immunized. Logistic regression analysis achieved an overall correct prediction rate of 84.7% by including the contribution of the four variables of susceptibility, barriers, cues to action, and health motivation. Content analysis of the non-immunized students’ descriptions of what it would have taken for them to be immunized indicated the influence of these four variables.

Discussion: The Immunization Health Belief Model Scale is a valuable tool for ascertaining attitudes and beliefs relating to immunization decision-making. Interventions targeted to significant beliefs may increase immunization coverage levels and result in improved disease prevention.

Résumé

Objectif: Comparer les données d’étudiants vaccinés et non vaccinés durant l’éclosion de rougeole à la Simon Fraser University (Colombie-Britannique) en 1997.

Méthode: Étude descriptive comparative prenant pour cadre théorique le modèle de croyance à la santé. Un questionnaire à remplir soi-même a été posté à un échantillon aléatoire stratifié de 400 étudiants vaccinés et de 400 étudiants non vaccinés de la SFU.

Résultats: La prédisposition subjective, la gravité, les obstacles, les facteurs poussant à l’action, la menace et l’âge de l’étudiant(e) présentaient des liens significatifs avec le fait d’être vacciné. Par analyse de régression logistique, nous avons obtenu un taux de prédictions exactes de 84,7 % dans l’ensemble, en incluant l’action de quatre variables: la prédisposition, les obstacles, les facteurs poussant à l’action et la motivation liée à la santé. L’analyse du contenu des descriptions des étudiants non vaccinés sur ce qu’il aurait fallu pour les convaincre de se faire vacciner confirme l’influence de ces quatre variables.

Discussion: L’échelle fondée sur le modèle de croyance à la santé est un outil précieux pour établir avec précision les attitudes et les convictions liées à la décision de se faire vacciner ou non. Les interventions axées sur les convictions ancrées pourraient accroître les niveaux de couverture vaccinale et améliorer la prévention des maladies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    National Advisory Committee on Immunization. Consensus conference on measles. Can Commun Dis Rep 1993;19-10:72–79.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pennie RA, O’Connor AM, Garvock MJ, Drake ER. Factors influencing the acceptance of hepatitis B vaccine by students in health disciplines in Ottawa. Can J Public Health 1991;82:12–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weingarten S, Riedinger M, Bolton L, Miles P, Ault M. Barriers to influenza acceptance. A survey of physicians and nurses. Am J Infect Control 1989;17(4):202–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centers for Disease Control. Adult immunization: Knowledge, attitudes and practices — DeKalb and Fulton counties, Georgia. MMWR 1988;37:657–61.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montano DE. Predicting and understanding influenza vaccination behaviour. Alternatives to the health belief model. Med Care 1986;24(5):438–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett P, Smith C. Parents’ attitudinal and social influences on childhood vaccination. Health Educ Res 1992;7/3:341–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li J, Taylor B. Factors affecting uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella immunization. Br Med J 1993;307:168–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenstock IM. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Educ Monogr 1974;2:354–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ Monogr 1974;2:324–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: A decade later. Health Educ Q 1984;11:1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cummings KM, Jette AM, Brock BM, Haefner DP. Psychosocial determinants of immunization behavior in a swine influenza campaign. Med Care 1979;17(6):639–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feigelman S, Stanton B, Rubin JD, Cartelli NA. Effectiveness of family notification efforts and compliance with measles post-exposure prophylaxis. J Community Health 1993;18:83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maiman LA, Becker MH, Kirscht JP, Haefner DP, Drachman RH. Scales for measuring health belief model dimensions: A test of predictive value, internal consistency, and relationships among beliefs. Health Educ Monogr 1977;5:215–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao M, Wilkinson J, Millar M, Richards G. Measles vaccination in primary schools. The Colchester project. Public Health 1988;102(5):477–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roberts RJ, Sandifer QD, Evans MR, Nolan-Farrell MZ, Davis PM. Reasons for non-uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella catch-up immunization in a measles epidemic and side effects of the vaccine. Br Med J 1995;310:1629–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sass J, Bertolone K, Denton D, Logsdon MC. Exposure to blood and body fluid. Factors associated with non-compliance in follow-up HIV testing among health care workers. AAOHN J 1995;43:507–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zimmerman RK, Ahwesh ER, Mieczkowski TA, Block B, Janosky JE, Barker DW. Influence of family functioning and income on vaccination in inner-city health centers. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996;150:1054–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lwanga SK, Lemeshow S. Sample Size Determination in Health Studies: A Practical Manual. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Champion VL. Instrument refinement for breast cancer screening behaviours. Nurs Res 1993;42:139–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simon Fraser University Student Services and Registrar. SFU Fact Book 1997. Available on-line at: http://www.sfu.ca:80/analytical-studies/FactBook/d-student/sectd.html
  21. 21.
    Kerlinger FN. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Epidemiology ServicesBritish Columbia Centre for Disease ControlVancouverCanada
  2. 2.School of NursingUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations