title: Comparison of different risk perception measures in predicting seasonal influenza vaccination among healthy Chinese adults in Hong Kong: a prospective longitudinal study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Risk perception is a reported predictor of vaccination uptake, but which measures of risk perception best predict influenza vaccination uptake remain unclear.
  
  
  METHODS
  During the main influenza seasons (between January and March) of 2009 (Wave 1) and 2010 (Wave 2),505 Chinese students and employees from a Hong Kong university completed an online survey. Multivariate logistic regression models were conducted to assess how well different risk perceptions measures in Wave 1 predicted vaccination uptake against seasonal influenza in Wave 2.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The results of the multivariate logistic regression models showed that feeling at risk (β = 0.25, p = 0.021) was the better predictor compared with probability judgment while probability judgment (β = 0.25, p = 0.029 ) was better than beliefs about risk in predicting subsequent influenza vaccination uptake. Beliefs about risk and feeling at risk seemed to predict the same aspect of subsequent vaccination uptake because their associations with vaccination uptake became insignificant when paired into the logistic regression model. Similarly, to compare the four scales for assessing probability judgment in predicting vaccination uptake, the 7-point verbal scale remained a significant and stronger predictor for vaccination uptake when paired with other three scales; the 6-point verbal scale was a significant and stronger predictor when paired with the percentage scale or the 2-point verbal scale; and the percentage scale was a significant and stronger predictor only when paired with the 2-point verbal scale.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Beliefs about risk and feeling at risk are not well differentiated by Hong Kong Chinese people. Feeling at risk, an affective-cognitive dimension of risk perception predicts subsequent vaccination uptake better than do probability judgments. Among the four scales for assessing risk probability judgment, the 7-point verbal scale offered the best predictive power for subsequent vaccination uptake.
authors.affiliation: Health Behaviors Research Group, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
authors.forename: Qiuyan
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Liao
authors.forename: Wing Sze
authors.initials: WS
authors.lastname: Wong
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Fielding
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D044466:Asian People / Q000523:psychology; D005260:Female; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006306:Health Surveys; D006723:Hong Kong; D006801:Humans; D007252:Influenza Vaccines; D007251:Influenza, Human / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000523:psychology*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010465:Perception; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012306:Risk; D012621:Seasons; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014611:Vaccination / Q000523:psychology*; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D007252:Influenza Vaccines
references.citation: JAMA. 1999 Mar 10;281(10):908-13
references.pmid: 10078487
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 2010 Sep 15;202(6):867-76
references.pmid: 20677945
references.citation: J Psychol. 1975 Sep;91(1):93-114
references.pmid: 28136248
references.citation: Lancet. 2011 Dec 3;378(9807):1917-30
references.pmid: 22078723
references.citation: BMC Public Health. 2008 Aug 01;8:272
references.pmid: 18673545
references.citation: Vaccine. 2006 Jun 29;24(26):5526-34
references.pmid: 16716461
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2004 Jun;24(3):665-73
references.pmid: 15209937
references.citation: J Ambul Care Manage. 2004 Oct-Dec;27(4):314-27
references.pmid: 15495744
references.citation: Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Dec 1;39(11):1611-7
references.pmid: 15578360
references.citation: Ann Behav Med. 2004 Apr;27(2):125-30
references.pmid: 15026296
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec 26;347(26):2097-103
references.pmid: 12501221
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 Mar 11;6(3):e17713
references.pmid: 21412418
references.citation: Health Educ Res. 1993 Jun;8(2):181-92
references.pmid: 10148827
references.citation: J Infect Dis. 2012 Dec 15;206(12):1862-71
references.pmid: 23045622
references.citation: PLoS Med. 2006 Apr;3(4):e121
references.pmid: 16515368
references.citation: Health Psychol. 2007 Mar;26(2):136-45
references.pmid: 17385964
references.citation: Health Psychol. 2006 Jan;25(1):82-90
references.pmid: 16448301
references.citation: Vaccine. 2007 Jun 28;25(27):5086-96
references.pmid: 17544181
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2001 Mar;127(2):267-86
references.pmid: 11316014
references.citation: Health Commun. 2010 Dec;25(8):661-9
references.pmid: 21153982
references.citation: Prev Med. 1999 Oct;29(4):249-62
references.pmid: 10547050
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jul 07;(7):CD001269
references.pmid: 20614424
references.citation: Am J Infect Control. 2012 Sep;40(7):e225-7
references.pmid: 22743046
references.citation: Health Psychol. 2005 Jul;24(4S):S35-40
references.pmid: 16045417
references.citation: Health Educ Q. 1984 Spring;11(1):1-47
references.pmid: 6392204
references.citation: Int J Behav Med. 2009;16(1):7-29
references.pmid: 19214752
references.citation: Health Psychol. 2007 Mar;26(2):146-51
references.pmid: 17385965
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2004 Apr;24(2):311-22
references.pmid: 15078302