Table 4.
Comparing opinion on vaccination in the 2006-07 surveya with the 1995-96 survey
| Nationwide sampleb | N (%) | Crude OR (95%CI) | Adjusted OR (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| More inclined to accept vaccination | |||
| First survey | 498 (8) | Reference | Reference |
| Second survey | 268 (7) | 0.8 (0.7-0.9)c | 0.8 (0.7-0.9)d |
| Less inclined to accept vaccination | |||
| First survey | 122 (2) | Reference | Reference |
| Second survey | 131 (3) | 1.4 (1.1-1.9)c | 1.3 (1.0-1.7)d |
| Low vaccination coverage samplee | |||
| More inclined to accept vaccination | |||
| First survey | 108 (9) | Reference | Reference |
| Second survey | 76 (6) | 0.7 (0.5-1.0)f | 0.6 (0.5-0.9)g |
| Less inclined to accept vaccination | |||
| First survey | 27 (2) | Reference | Reference |
| Second survey | 60 (5) | 2.2 (1.4-3.5)f | 2.0 (1.2-3.2)g |
aThe reference category is: "My opinion had not changed with respect to the 5 years preceding the survey"
bThe number of participants in the NS in the first and second survey was 5881 and 3878, respectively
cAdjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, degree of urbanization and region
dAdjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, degree of urbanization, region and educational level
eThe number of participants in the LVC sample in the first and second survey was 1204 and 1190, respectively
fAdjusted for age and gender
gAdjusted for age, gender and religion (categories are as in Table 3)