Skip to main content
Log in

Understanding the Dimensions of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) Scale

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

Anti-vaccination attitudes are important predictors of vaccination behavior. Existing measures of vaccination attitudes focus on specific age groups and/or particular vaccines; a more comprehensive measure would facilitate comparisons across studies.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop a short measure of general vaccination attitudes and establish its reliability and validity.

Methods

Two studies were conducted using the VAX scale. For Study 1, participants were 409 individuals (53% female), with a mean age of 34.5 years. For Study 2, participants were 92 individuals (67% female) with a mean age of 28.6. Participants answered paper-and-pencil questions about their attitudes toward vaccines, prior and expected-future vaccination behaviors, perceived sensitivity to medicines, online behavior, and basic demographic information. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted with correlations and t tests then used to assess the scale’s reliability and validity.

Results

Four distinct but correlated vaccine attitudes were identified: (1) mistrust of vaccine benefit, (2) worries about unforeseen future effects, (3) concerns about commercial profiteering, and (4) preference for natural immunity. These factors were significantly related to prior vaccination behavior, future intentions to obtain recommended vaccinations, perceived sensitivity to medicines, and the tendency to obtain health information online.

Conclusions

The VAX scale provides an efficient method for identifying those with vaccination resistance, and the four subscales enable a more nuanced understanding of the nature of those views. It should be noted, however, that the strong correlations amongst the four subscales suggest that interventions should target all four attitude areas, and it remains to be seen whether differential emphasis across the four areas is warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Palache A, Oriol-Mathieu V, Abelin A, Music T. Seasonal influenza vaccine dose distribution in 157 countries (2004–2011). Vaccine. 2014;32:6369–6376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pearce A, Law C, Elliman D, Cole TJ, Bedford H, Millennium Cohort Study Child Health Group. Factors associated with uptake of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) and use of single antigen vaccines in a contemporary UK cohort: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2008;336:754–757.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Jansen VA, Stollenwerk N, Jensen HJ, Ramsay ME, Edmunds WJ, Rhodes CJ. Measles outbreaks in a population with declining vaccine uptake. Science. 2003;301:804.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Phadke VK, Bednarczyk RA, Salmon DA, Omer SB. Association between vaccine refusal and vaccine-preventable diseases in the United States: a review of measles and pertussis. JAMA. 2016;315:1149–1158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Atwell JE, Salmon DA. Pertussis resurgence and vaccine uptake: implications for reducing vaccine hesitancy. Pediatrics. 2014;134:602–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cherry JD. Epidemic pertussis in 2012—the resurgence of a vaccine-preventable disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:785–787.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Petrie KJ, Sivertsen B, Hysing M, et al. Thoroughly modern worries: the relationship of worries about modernity to reported symptoms, health and medical care utilization. J Psychosom Res. 2001;51:395–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Petrie KJ, Wessely S. Modern worries, new technology, and medicine. BMJ. 2002;324:690–691.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown KF, Kroll JS, Hudson MJ, et al. Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine. 2010;28:4235–4248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcini L, Galvan T, Barnack-Tavlaris J. The study of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake from a parental perspective: a systematic review of observational studies in the United States. Vaccine. 2012;30:4588–4595.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hofmann F, Ferracin C, Marsh G, Dumas R. Influenza vaccination of healthcare workers: a literature review of attitudes and beliefs. Infection. 2006;34:142–147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yaqub O, Castle-Clarke S, Sevdalis N, Chataway J. Attitudes to vaccination: a critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;112:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kennedy A, Basket M, Sheedy K. Vaccine attitudes, concerns, and information sources reported by parents of young children: results from the 2009 HealthStyles survey. Pediatrics. 2011;127(Suppl 1):S92–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Opel DJ, Mangione-Smith R, Taylor JA, et al. Development of a survey to identify vaccine-hesitant parents: the parent attitudes about childhood vaccines survey. Hum Vaccines. 2011;7:419–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Schulz WS, et al. Measuring vaccine hesitancy: the development of a survey tool. Vaccine. 2015;33:4165–4175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee S, Newman PA, Duan N, Cunningham WE. Development of an HIV vaccine attitudes scale to predict HIV vaccine acceptability among vulnerable populations: LA VOICES. Vaccine. 2014;32:5013–5018.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. McRee AL, Brewer NT, Reiter PL, Gottlieb SL, Smith JS. The carolina HPV immunization attitudes and beliefs scale (CHIAS): scale development and associations with intentions to vaccinate. Sex Transm Dis. 2010;37:234–239.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dempsey AF, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Konrath S. Use of the carolina HPV immunization attitudes and beliefs scale (CHIAS) in young adult women. PloS one. 2014;9(6):e100193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Prislin R, Dyer JA, Blakely CH, Johnson CD. Immunization status and sociodemographic characteristics: the mediating role of beliefs, attitudes, and perceived control. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1821–1826.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Horne R, Faasse K, Cooper V, et al. The perceived sensitivity to medicines (PSM) scale: an evaluation of validity and reliability. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18:18–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Faasse K, Grey A, Horne R, Petrie KJ. High perceived sensitivity to medicines is associated with higher medical care utilisation, increased symptom reporting and greater information-seeking about medication. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:592–599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JEJ. Health perceptions, energy/fatigue, and health distress measure. In: Stewart EL, Ware JEJ, eds. Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1992:143–172.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Horn, JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–185.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weng, LJ, Cheng, ChP. Parallel analysis with unidimensional binary data. Educ Psychol Meas. 2005;65:697–716.

  25. Horne R, Weinman J, Hankins M. The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: the development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. Psychol Health. 1999;14:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Foot H, La Caze A, Gujral G, Cottrell N. The necessity–concerns framework predicts adherence to medication in multiple illness conditions: a meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:706–717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Horne R, Chapman SC, Parham R, Freemantle N, Forbes A, Cooper V. Understanding patients’ adherence-related beliefs about medicines prescribed for long-term conditions: a meta-analytic review of the necessity-concerns framework. PloS one. 2013;8(12):e80633.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K. The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75637.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Page LA, Petrie KJ, Wessely SC. Psychosocial responses to environmental incidents: a review and a proposed typology. J Psychosom Res. 2006;60:413–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2691–2700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kata A. A postmodern pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the internet. Vaccine. 2010;28:1709–1716.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wolfe RM, Sharp LK. Vaccination or immunization? The impact of search terms on the internet. J Health Commun. 2005;10:537–551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brunson EK. The impact of social networks on parents’ vaccination decisions. Pediatrics. 2013;131:e1397–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leslie R. Martin PhD.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Adherence

This study was approved by La Sierra University’s Institutional Review Board (#LSU-1505), and all participants gave informed consent prior to entering the study. All data were then collected using an anonymous, self-report questionnaire.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards Authors Leslie R. Martin and Keith J. Petrie declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin, L.R., Petrie, K.J. Understanding the Dimensions of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) Scale. ann. behav. med. 51, 652–660 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-017-9888-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-017-9888-y

Keywords

Navigation