ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study investigates the longitudinal role of interpretation biases in the development and maintenance of health anxiety during the pandemic. Individual differences in behavioural responses to the virus outbreak and decision-making were also examined. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-nine individuals from a pre-pandemic study of interpretation bias and health anxiety completed an online survey during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong. Participants' health anxiety, interpretation biases, and COVID-specific behaviours (i.e. practice of social distancing, adherence to preventive measures, information seeking), and health decision-making were assessed. RESULTS: Pre-pandemic tendencies to interpret ambiguous physical sensations as signals for illness did not predict health anxiety during the pandemic, b = -0.020, SE = 0.024, t = -0.843, p = .400, 99% CI [-0.082, 0.042], but were associated with a preference for risky treatment option for COVID-19, b = 0.026, SE = 0.010, Wald = 2.614, p = .009, OR = 1.026, 99% CI [1.001, 1.054]. Interpretation biases and health anxiety symptoms during the pandemic were associated with each other and were both found to be significant predictors of practice of social distancing, adherence to preventive measures, and information seeking behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing evidence of the role of interpretation biases in health anxiety and the way that people respond to the ongoing pandemic.
ABSTRACT
Within the coronavirus-disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, disease-related information is omnipresent in the media, whereas information about how to manage the pandemic is less often covered. Under the context where threat is present, this study investigated whether and how the strength of efficacy framing (i.e., the perspective adopted by a communicating text that emphasizes one's possibilities to cope with an external threat) of COVID-19-related news, as well as its interaction with trait health anxiety under the COVID-19 context, related to people's COVID-19-related cognitive outcomes. One hundred and ninety-three participants reported demographics, trait health anxiety, and COVID-19-related behaviors (e.g., precautionary measures, information-seeking behaviors). They then either read high-efficacy (n = 112; e.g., cure rate) or low-efficacy (n = 81; e.g., mortality rate) information about COVID-19. Afterward, their tendency to interpret illness- and COVID-19-related information more negatively, and other COVID-19-related cognitions (e.g., risk perception, behavioral change intentions) were assessed. High-efficacy framing resulted in lower-risk perception and marginally weaker COVID-19-related interpretation bias, compared with low-efficacy framing. There was some evidence of an interaction with health anxiety such that high-efficacy framing, compared with low-efficacy framing, was associated with greater intention to adopt protective behaviors, particularly for individuals with higher levels of health anxiety. Media framing of COVID-19 information affects how people respond to the pandemic; a high-efficacy communication style might more effectively encourage healthy behaviors than a low-efficacy narrative, particularly for people who are already anxious about their health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus , Anxiety , Cognition , Humans , Information Seeking BehaviorABSTRACT
COVID-19 vaccines are crucial for achieving sufficient immunisation coverage to manage the pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy persists. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and determinants of vaccine hesitancy in adults and in parents for vaccinating their children using an integrated social cognition model. A community-based cohort in Singapore [N = 1623] completed a survey (wave 25) between June and July 2021 which measured their risk perceptions, distress, trust, vaccination beliefs, and vaccine intentions/behaviours. Results indicated low rates of hesitancy (9.9%) for own vaccination, with most concerns citing side effects, safety, and hasty development. Remaining respondents were vaccinated (69%) or intended to vaccinate (21%). The multivariable model (non-vaccinated respondents) indicated that, living with people in poor health, subjective norm, moral norm, benefits, and necessity of vaccination were associated with lower vaccine hesitancy (R2 Cox & Snell: 51.4%; p < 0.001). Hesitancy rates were higher for children's vaccination (15.9%), with male gender, lower perceived vaccine benefits, high COVID-19 risk perceptions, vaccination concerns, and necessity beliefs associated with higher odds of parental vaccine hesitancy (R2 Cox & Snell = 36.4%; p < 0.001). While levels of vaccine acceptance are high, more targeted messages are needed. For adults' vaccination, more emphasis should be on benefits and social gains, while for parental hesitancy, messages related to safety should be prioritised.