Skip to main content

Table 3 Reported factors in H1N1 vaccine decision-making*

From: Factors influencing H1N1 vaccine behavior among Manitoba Metis in Canada: a qualitative study

Factors

Participants who reported vaccinating against H1N1 (n = 72)

Participants who reported NOT vaccinating against H1N1 (n = 54)

 

Winnipeg

Rural/Remote

Winnipeg

Rural/Remote

(n = 26)

(n = 46)

(n = 30)

(n = 24)

System/Institutional level

    

 Definition of priority groups

8(7+/−1)

7(5+/2-)

6(3+/3-)

5(2+/3-)

 Government communication

13(11+/2-)

6+

11(6+/5-)

0

 Vaccine roll-out and availability

6+

1+

2(1+/1-)

2(1+/1-)

 Institutional interventions

2+

0

0

0

Social Context level

    

 Media coverage

10(9+/1)

13(7+/6-)

11(1+/10-)

6(1+/5-)

 “Bandwagoning”

7+

6+

0

0

Interpersonal level

    

 Interpersonal influence

11(7+/4-)

13+

14(3+/11-)

5(3+/2-)

 Interaction with health professionals

10(9+/1-)

4+

0

2(1+/1-)

Intrapersonal level

    

 Habitual behavior

7(4+/3-)

5(3+/2-)

6(2+/4-)

8(2+/6-)

 Altruism

4+

3+

0

0

 “Free-loading”

0

0

0

0

 Vaccine risk perception

12-

19(1+/18-)

18-

17-

 Personal risk perception

15(14+/1-)

17(15+/2-)

17(5+/12-)

8(2+/6-)

 Knowledge state

13(5+/8-)

17(1+/16-)

25(1+/24-)

12-

 Trust

7(5+/2-)

1-

5-

5-

 Protected values

1-

0

6-

4-

 Past experience

6(4+/2-)

5(3+/2-)

5-

7(2+/5-)

 Perceived alternatives

0

2-

8-

5-

  1. *The non-bracketed value in each cell represents the total number of participants who reported the factor. The bracketed values followed by “+” reflect instances where that factor positively influenced a decision to vaccinate; whereas bracketed values followed by “-” reflect instances where that factor negatively influenced a decision to vaccinate. In either case, there were instances when participants reported that they acted contrary to the way a factor influenced them.