Vaccines · 2026
Faith, Science, and Choice: Vaccine Attitudes Among Religious University Students.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aduse-Poku Isaiah, Thompson Keersty J B, Fillmore Afton, Sim Leah, Woolley Isaac A, Bailey Elizabeth G, Poole Brian D, Jensen Jamie L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Vaccine attitudes are an individual's beliefs, feelings, and evaluations regarding vaccines. Limited research has examined how students in faith-based university settings organize these attitudes. This study looked at vaccination attitudes among students at a religious university where faith, science, family, and politics often influence how students think and make decisions.
METHODS: This study used Q-methodology to examine shared viewpoints about vaccination. A concourse of 240 statements was developed from published literature, public discourse, and student interviews, then reduced to a 37-statement-Q-set. Undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory nonmajors biology course completed digital Q-sorts. We analyzed the data using by-person factor analysis, along with principal components analysis and Varimax rotation. Follow-up interviews helped us interpret the factors.
RESULTS: Three viewpoints explained 59% of the study variance. The first viewpoint, Faith-Integrated Institutional Trust, showed strong trust in science, public health agencies, and religious leaders. People in this group saw vaccination as both a moral duty and a way to protect others. The second viewpoint, Skeptical Autonomy and Institutional Distrust, emphasized personal choice, family influence, and distrust of government and official vaccine information. The third viewpoint, Pragmatic Autonomy and Science Confidence, endorsed vaccines and scientific evidence while also prioritizing individual decision-making over mandates.
CONCLUSIONS: Science alone does not explain vaccination attitudes among college students. Trust, identity, and personal autonomy also play an important role. Vaccine communication should therefore connect scientific evidence with students' moral commitments, trusted relationships, and concerns about freedom, especially in settings where faith influences health decision-making.
METHODS: This study used Q-methodology to examine shared viewpoints about vaccination. A concourse of 240 statements was developed from published literature, public discourse, and student interviews, then reduced to a 37-statement-Q-set. Undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory nonmajors biology course completed digital Q-sorts. We analyzed the data using by-person factor analysis, along with principal components analysis and Varimax rotation. Follow-up interviews helped us interpret the factors.
RESULTS: Three viewpoints explained 59% of the study variance. The first viewpoint, Faith-Integrated Institutional Trust, showed strong trust in science, public health agencies, and religious leaders. People in this group saw vaccination as both a moral duty and a way to protect others. The second viewpoint, Skeptical Autonomy and Institutional Distrust, emphasized personal choice, family influence, and distrust of government and official vaccine information. The third viewpoint, Pragmatic Autonomy and Science Confidence, endorsed vaccines and scientific evidence while also prioritizing individual decision-making over mandates.
CONCLUSIONS: Science alone does not explain vaccination attitudes among college students. Trust, identity, and personal autonomy also play an important role. Vaccine communication should therefore connect scientific evidence with students' moral commitments, trusted relationships, and concerns about freedom, especially in settings where faith influences health decision-making.