Childhood vaccinations (n = 4) |
|
|
|
|
|
Brunson (2013) [23] |
SNA:
- -
-
3 models examining influence of beliefs on vaccination:
- (a)
-
parent
- (b)
-
people network
- (c)
-
source network
|
NR |
NR |
NR |
Non-vaccination increased when having more non-conformers 4 in network (OR = 30.57, CI: 5.75–162.65). |
Non-conformers 4 were more likely to have higher education (i.e., graduate degree; OR = 5.34, CI: 1.05–27.08) |
- -
|
| -
| Parents
| -
|
|
Fu et al. (2019) [28] |
LR:
- -
-
MLS to examine association of parental trust in social contacts for vaccinations and exposure to anti- and pro-HPV vaccine viewpoints 5
|
NR |
NR |
Participants tended to have similar social networks to themselves:
- -
-
Mostly female
- -
-
African American
- -
-
Parents
| -
Higher HPV refusal was associated with high exposure to anti-vaccine viewpoints (AOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.01–2.3) and low exposure to pro-vaccine viewpoints 5 (AOR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2–2.6).
-
62.5% of participants holding negative vaccination attitudes reported family and friends having negative vaccination beliefs.
|
The vaccine advice networks were small, dense, family centric, and homophilous. |
| | | | | (AOR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2–2.6).
-
62.5% of participants holding negative vaccination attitudes reported family and friends having negative vaccination beliefs.
|
The vaccine advice networks were small, dense, family centric, and homophilous. |
Goldberg (2014) [20] |
Goldberg (2014) [29 | SNA:
- -
-
LR and MLS models using logit and xtlogit functions
|
NR |
Centrality did not predict vaccination uptake |
] | Participants tend to have similar peers in networks:
- -
-
Married
- -
-
Same ethnicity (Hausa, Muslim)
- -
-
Having no formal education
-
- -
Same ethnicity (Hausa, Muslim)
-
- -
Similar in co-wife and wealth status
|
-
Having no formal education -
- -
-
Similar in co-wife and wealth status -
|
-
Greater participants’ decision on vaccinating their children was related to the descriptive norm 6 (b = 0.92, CI: 0.04–1.7, p = 0.04) and injuctive norm 6 (b = 2.3, CI: 0.00–0.31, p = 0.05) of peers.
-
Both norms of opinion leaders7 were not related to participants’ decision on vaccinating their children (p > 0.05).
|
-
Greater participants’ decision on vaccinating their children was related to the descriptive norm 6 (b = 0.92, CI: 0.04–1.7, p = 0.04) and injuctive norm 6 (b = 2.3, CI: 0.00–0.31, p = 0.05) of peers.
-
Both norms of opinion leaders7 were not related to participants’ decision on vaccinating their children (p > 0.05).
|
- -
-
Frequency of communication with opinion leaders (b = 2.7, CI: 0.58–3.0, p = 0.04) and peers (b = 0.63, CI: 0.35–1.6, p = 0.02) strengthened the influence of descriptive norms 6.
- -
|
- -
-
Frequency of communication with opinion leaders (b = 2.7, CI: 0.58–3.0, p = 0.04) and peers (b = 0.63, CI: 0.35–1.6, p = 0.02) strengthened the influence of descriptive norms 6.
-
Injuctive norms 6 in peer networks were more influential than descriptive norms.
|
|
SNA:
|
|
| - -
|
| -
| Injuctive norms 6 in peer networks were more influential than descriptive norms. -
|
Mascia et al. (2020) [21] |
Mascia et al. (2020) [30] | SNA:
- -
-
MRQA procedures to explore factors associated with formation of network ties and adoption of similar behaviour
- -
-
LRQA procedure to produce estimates of regression models
|
NR |
NR |
SNA:
| Vaccination uptake was more similar in students with the same ethnicity (OR = 5.39–6.13), different gender (OR = 0.84–0.87) and belonging to the same class (OR = 1.68–1.82). |
Students were more likely to report similar vaccination uptake with friendship ties occurring after school rather than those established during school (OR = 1.47). |
- |
- -
|
-
MRQA procedures to explore factors associated with formation of network ties and adoption of similar behaviour
- -
-
LRQA procedure to produce estimates of regression models
|
NR |
NR |
Vaccination uptake was more similar in students with the same ethnicity (OR = 5.39–6.13), different gender (OR = 0.84–0.87) and belonging to the same class (OR = 1.68–1.82). |
Students were more likely to report similar vaccination uptake with friendship ties occurring after school rather than those established during school (OR = 1.47). |
- |
Self-vaccination (n = 7) |
|
Self-vaccination (n = 7) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Casillas et al. (2011) [22] |
LR:
- -
-
2 MLS models examining the relationship between (a) Source of information model and (b) Discussion about vaccination, on perceived HPV vaccine effectiveness
|
NR |
NR |
NR |
Participants were more likely to perceive the vaccine as effective:
- -
|
Casillas et al. (2011) [24] |
LR:
- -
-
2 MLS models examining the relationship between (a) Source of information model and (b) Discussion about vaccination, on perceived HPV vaccine effectiveness
|
| -
| When hearing about vaccination from family, friends or doctor/nurse/healthcare provider (OR = 4.78, 95% CI: 1.76–12.98).
| -
- -
-
When discussing (once or more) vaccination with family and/or friends (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.04–3.78).
|
NR |
|
Having high school education as the highest education level decreased the odds of perceived vaccine effectiveness compared to no school and college levels (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23–0.96) |
NR |
NR |
Participants were more likely to perceive the vaccine as effective:
|
| - -
|
-
When hearing about vaccination from family, friends or doctor/nurse/healthcare provider (OR = 4.78, 95% CI: 1.76–12.98).
- -
-
When discussing (once or more) vaccination with family and/or friends (OR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.04–3.78).
|
Having high school education as the highest education level decreased the odds of perceived vaccine effectiveness compared to no school and college levels (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.23–0.96) |
Edge et al. (2015) [23] |
SNA:
|
Edge et al. (2015) [25] | - -
-
Assortativity coefficient 8 to test clusters.
- -
|
SNA:
- -
-
-
Each individual’s influence on network measured in terms of how well connected they were within network, with between-ness score.
|
|
Assortativity coefficient
| No clustering observed between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals |
8 to test clusters.
- -
| NR |
-
Each individual’s influence on network measured in terms of how well connected they were within network, with between-ness score. -
| NR |
Participants were more likely to get vaccinated if they perceived their peers as being vaccinated (no statistical information reported). |
- |
|
No clustering observed between vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals |
NR |
NR |
Participants were more likely to get vaccinated if they perceived their peers as being vaccinated (no statistical information reported). |
- |
Edge et al. (2019) [24] |
Edge et al. (2019) [26] | SNA:
- -
-
Assortativity coefficient 9 for homophily
- -
|
SNA:
- -
-
Assortativity coefficient 9 -
Auto-logistic regression model: effect of an individual’s social connections on their vaccination decision.
|
|
for homophily
| NR |
-
- -
-
Auto-logistic regression model: effect of an individual’s social connections on their vaccination decision.
| NR |
-
| No homophily observed (Assortativity = −0.03, 95% CI: −0.12–0.10) |
| Participants were more likely to get vaccinated if they had a higher proportion of vaccinated neighbors in their social network (OR = 2.63, 95% CI: 1.28 −5.38). |
- |
NR |
NR |
No homophily observed (Assortativity = −0.03, 95% CI: −0.12–0.10) |
Participants were more likely to get vaccinated if they had a higher proportion of vaccinated neighbors in their social network (OR = 2.63, 95% CI: 1.28 −5.38). |
- |
Frank (2011) [25] |
Frank (2011) [27] | SNA:
- -
-
Primary measure: node’s 9 degree of connection with other nodes
- -
-
HLM and HGLM to examine group influences on health-related attitudes and behaviours
|
People in the same working group in the company |
NR |
NR |
SNA:
- -
-
Primary measure: node’s 9 degree of connection with other nodes
- -
-
HLM and HGLM to examine group influences on health-related attitudes and behaviours
|
-
Participants were more likely to get vaccinated when they perceived their group members as vaccination supporters (γ = 0.08, t = 2.7, p < 0.01).
-
People with children were more likely to intend to self-vaccinate (γ = 1.14, t = 2.03, p < 0.05).
-
Subjective norms (γ = 0.05, p < 0.05) and descriptive norms 10 (γ = 0.03, p < 0.05) were positively associated with vaccination intention.
|
People in the same working group in the company |
NR |
NR |
| - |
| | | | |
|
- |
Hernandez, Pullen and Brauer (2019) [26] |
SNA:
- -
-
Bayesian structural equation modelling
|
NR |
Hernandez, Pullen and Brauer (2019) [31] |
SNA:
- -
-
Bayesian structural equation modelling
| NR |
Well-educated women tend to have well-educated networks who support vaccination uptake |
|
-
Participants were more likely to be vaccinated if they had more network members who were both college-educated and either vaccine supporters (b = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.03–0.66, p = 0.01), or discussants (b = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.00–0.27, p = 0.02).
|
NR |
NR |
Well-educated women tend to have well-educated networks who support vaccination uptake |
-
Participants were more likely to be vaccinated if they had more network members who were both college-educated and either vaccine supporters (b = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.03–0.66, p = 0.01), or discussants (b = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.00–0.27, p = 0.02). -
Participants were less likely to be vaccinated if their network was less educated (none being college-educated) or supporting less vaccination.
|
|
| - |
| | | | |
|
- |
Nyhan et al. (2012) [27] |
Nyhan et al. (2012) [ | LR:
- -
-
OLS with AOR reported
|
NR |
NR |
NR |
32] |
LR:
- -
-
OLS with AOR reported
|
-
Participants with more pro-vaccination 5 discussion networks reported higher beliefs in vaccine safety (AOR = 1.85–2.32, 95% CI: 1.57–2.84) and greater vaccination intention (AOR = 1.74–1.78, 95% CI: 1.47–2.16).
-
Participants who perceived parents, spouses, or friends as being pro-vaccinated were more likely to report that vaccines are safe (AOR = 1.96–5.59, 95% CI: 1.25–12.57) and greater vaccination intention (AOR = 1.52–2.49, 95% CI: 0.66–5.56).
|
NR |
NR |
NR |
-
Participants with more pro-vaccination 5 discussion networks reported higher beliefs in vaccine safety (AOR = 1.85–2.32, 95% CI: 1.57–2.84) and greater vaccination intention (AOR = 1.74–1.78, 95% CI: 1.47–2.16).
-
Participants who perceived parents, spouses, or friends as being pro-vaccinated were more likely to report that vaccines are safe (AOR = 1.96–5.59, 95% CI: 1.25–12.57) and greater vaccination intention (AOR = 1.52–2.49, 95% CI: 0.66–5.56). | - |
Ruiz (2015) [28] |
LR:
- -
-
BLS to test relationship between network density 11 and homophily on vaccine adoption status.
|
NR |
NR |
NR |
Higher vaccination uptake, compared to non-vaccination, was associated with:
- -
-
Perceptions that family members were vaccinated (B(1) = 2.41, p < 0.05)
- -
-
Made themselves the decision to be vaccinated (B(1) = 0.89, p < 0.05)
- -
-
Their parents were part of vaccination decision-making (B(1) = 1.61, p < 0.05)
- -
-
Lower density 11 in social networks (B(1) = 0.30, p < 0.05).
|
Vaccinated participants were more likely to trust family members (75%) for information about vaccines compared to non-vaccinated (60%) (p < 0.05 |