• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

A mediator model to predict workplace influenza vaccination behaviour - an application of the health action process approach

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Psychol Health. 2012 Dec 24. [Epub ahead of print]
A mediator model to predict workplace influenza vaccination behaviour - an application of the health action process approach.
Ernsting A, Gellert P, Schneider M, Lippke S.
Source

a Department of Health Psychology , Freie Universit?t Berlin , Berlin , Germany.
Abstract

Purpose: Applying the health action process approach (HAPA) to vaccination behaviour as a single-event health behaviour to study vaccination adherence and its predictors in a worksite flu vaccination programme. Methods: A total of N = 823 employees participated in a longitudinal survey. Predictors (risk perception, self-efficacy, positive and negative outcome expectancies, intention and planning) were assessed at Time 1, and behaviour was assessed five months later at Time 2. Intention and planning were specified as mediators in a path analytical logistic regression model. Results: Risk perception, self-efficacy and positive as well as negative outcome expectancies predicted intention (R? = .76). Intention and planning predicted subsequent behaviour, and planning mediated the relation between intention and vaccination behaviour (R? = .67). In addition, results suggested the adjustment of the theoretical model: risk perception and negative outcome expectancies showed direct effects on behaviour resulting in a significantly better model fit. Conclusions: Findings support the general applicability of the HAPA to vaccination behaviour and the importance of planning for translating intentions into behaviour. However, the adjusted model was superior and underlined the particular role of risk perception and negative outcome expectancies for vaccination behaviour to explain underlying mechanisms in vaccination behaviour.

PMID:
23259583
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23259583
 
Back
Top Bottom