Research Article
To Inoculate or Not To Inoculate: The Factors that Influence the Decision on Flu Inoculation
Yoram BT1*, Maksymiuk RA2 and Katarzyna Stasiuk2
1Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel
2Institute of Psychology, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Poland
- *Corresponding Author:
- Yoram Bar-Tal
Department of Nursing, Sackler Faculty of Medicine
Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel, 69978
Tel: 97236405427
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: August 02, 2016; Accepted date: August 22, 2016; Published date: August 31, 2016
Citation: Yoram BT, Maksymiuk RA, Stasiuk K (2016) To Inoculate or Not To Inoculate: The Factors that Influence the Decision on Flu Inoculation. J Pat Care 2:118.doi:10.4172/2573-4598.1000118
Copyright: © 2016 Yoram BT, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Objective: Patients’ poor adherence to medical advice is a major obstacle to the effective delivery of health care. The present research focuses on how patient preferences and physician preconceptions may affect a patient’s decision to comply with a physician’s recommendation regarding flu inoculation.
Methods: A 2 (physician’s recommendation: inoculate/not inoculate) by 3 (participant’s a priori attitude: pro/ neutral/against) by 2 (physician’s gender: male/female) by 2 (treatment setting: private/public) between-within-subjects design was used. One hundred eight-seven participants were asked to read four scenarios presented in random order, describing the circumstances that occur when visiting a physician who provides information about the possibility of flu inoculation. The participants’ a priori attitude toward this inoculation was then assessed. The key outcomes were the decision concerning flu inoculation and the certainty of that decision.
Results: In general, the decision on inoculation was negative. The participants who a priori objected to inoculation made a more negative choice than those who had neutral preferences and those who a priori approved of it. Compared with a negative recommendation, a positive recommendation by a physician was associated with a less negative decision. The participants were more certain when deciding against inoculation than in favor of it.
Conclusion: A positive physician’s recommendation caused the participants’ decision on inoculation to become less negative, but this suggestion was not sufficient to change the decision altogether. The participants’ a priori preference appeared to be a much more compelling factor in deciding whether to inoculate, and it also affected the conviction of that decision.
