Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36933983›Full record

ArticleVaccine2023

Using the precaution adoption process model to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine in England.

Carly Meyer, Louis Goffe, Vivi Antonopoulou, Fiona Graham, Mei Yee Tang, Jan Lecouturier, Aikaterini Grimani, Paul Chadwick, Falko F Sniehotta

Open access · hybridAbstract read

PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher

In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

10citing papers in PubMed

5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

Using an inferior decoy alternative to nudge COVID-19 vaccination.Scientific reports · 2025
Trial
Effectiveness of prescribed burn health risk communication on community and individual smoke-protective decision making using protective action theories.Frontiers in public health · 2026
Article
Adherence to mask wearing and social distancing and use of lateral flow tests during the COVID19 pandemic in England and Wales based on the virus watch community cohort study.Discover public health · 2026
Article
Understanding the public's decision-making about seasonal flu vaccination during a pandemic: Application of the precaution adoption process model.Journal of health psychology · 2025
Article
Respiratory Virus Vaccines: Pathways to Recommendations and Enhanced Coverage for At-Risk Populations.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025
Article
Mortality involving and not involving COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated in England between Apr 21 and May 23.F1000Research · 2025
Article
Building citizen science intelligence for outbreak preparedness and response: a mixed-method study in nine countries to assess knowledge, readiness and feasibility.BMJ global health · 2024
Article
The PROCAN-B study protocol: Early diagnosis of PROstate CANcer for Black men-a community-centred participatory approach in Scotland and the North-East of England.PloS one · 2024
Article
Frontiers in public health · 2022
Article
"I was having an internal conflict with myself." COVID-19 vaccination decision-making processes among pregnant women.Women's health (London, England)
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Carly MeyerNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Health Psychology Research Group, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, UK. Electronic address: carly.meyer@ucl.ac.uk.

Louis GoffeNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Vivi AntonopoulouNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Health Psychology Research Group, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.

Fiona GrahamNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Mei Yee TangNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Jan LecouturierNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK.

Aikaterini GrimaniNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK.

Paul ChadwickNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Health Psychology Research Group, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, UK.

Falko F SniehottaNIHR Policy Research Unit in Behavioural Science - Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, UK; Department of Public Health, Preventive and Social Medicine, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health Baden-Wuerttemberg, Heidelberg University, Germany.

Newcastle University · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBHeidelberg University · DEUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

Department of Health PR-PRU1217-20501

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 continues to pose a threat to public health. Booster vaccine programmes are critical to maintain population-level immunity. Stage theory models of health behaviour can help our understanding of vaccine decision-making in the context of perceived threats of COVID-19. PURPOSE: To use the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) to understand decision-making about the COVID-19 booster vaccine (CBV) in England.

methodsAn online, cross-sectional survey informed by the PAPM, the extended Theory of Planned Behaviour and Health Belief Model administered to people over the age of 50 residing in England, UK in October 2021. A multivariate, multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine associations with the different stages of CBV decision-making.

resultsOf the total 2,004 participants: 135 (6.7%) were unengaged with the CBV programme; 262 (13.1%) were undecided as to whether to have a CBV; 31 (1.5%) had decided not to have a CBV; 1,415 (70.6%) had decided to have a CBV; and 161 (8.0%) had already had their CBV. Being unengaged was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system to protect against COVID-19, being employed, and low household income; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, subjective norms, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, and higher academic qualifications. Being undecided was positively associated with beliefs in their immune system and having previously received the Oxford/AstraZeneca (as opposed to Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccine; and negatively associated with CBV knowledge, positive attitudes regarding CBV, a positive COVID-19 vaccine experience, anticipated regret of not having a CBV, white British ethnicity, and living in East Midlands (vs London).

conclusionsPublic health interventions promoting CBV may improve uptake through tailored messaging directed towards the specific decision stage relating to having a COVID-19 booster.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandHumansLondonVaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesBooster vaccinationCoronavirusHealth belief modelPrecaution adoption process modelTheory of planned behaviourVaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID36933983

DOI10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.047

PMCPMC9935297

OpenAlexW4321254727

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.