Evidence Hub

Cognitive factors associated with willingness to receive three important vaccines among older adults: A protection motivation theory perspective

Xue-Qing Peng, Rong-Na Huang, A. N. Walker, Liang-Zhi Zhang, Yun-Qi Miao, Q. Yu, Lei Li

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 2026

420 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

ABSTRACT Vaccines against influenza, pneumococcal pneumonia, and herpes zoster are pivotal for infectious disease control in older adults, yet vaccination coverage remains suboptimal. Guided by Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), this cross-sectional study identified cognitive factors of overall willingness toward the three important vaccines among adults aged ≥60 y, to inform population-level intervention strategies. A representative sample of 420 older adults was recruited from Chengdu, China, via multistage stratified sampling between August and October 2024. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was applied to analyze associations between PMT cognitive constructs, health status, and overall vaccination willingness. Results showed moderate overall willingness to receive the three vaccines (16.7 ± 5.0, range: 5–25), with PMT explaining 57.6% of its variance (R2 = 0.576). Four PMT cognitive factors significantly predicted vaccination willingness: three had positive associations – perceived vulnerability (b = 0.128, p < .01), self-efficacy (b = 0.396, p < .001), and response efficacy (b = 0.289, p < .001) – with self-efficacy being the strongest predictor; whereas response cost (b = −0.102, p < .01) exerted a negative effect. Health status moderated the perceived severity → vaccination willingness pathway (diff b = −0.189, p < .05); specifically, perceived severity positively correlated with willingness among older adults with poor health (b = 0.143, p < .05).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 420 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free