. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Feb 6.

Published in final edited form as: Health Educ Behav. 2011 Oct 7;39(2):229–243. doi: 10.1177/1090198111415105

Table 4.

Impact of characteristics at each level of the Social Ecological Model on Vaccine uptake

	Got Vaccine^a; N=2059		Intend to get vaccine^b; N=1260

Characteristic	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)^c	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted OR (95% CI)^c
Intrapersonal Level	N=1877	N=1877^d; R²=0.53	N=1155	N=1155
Disease Risk Perception	2.51 (2.06–3.05)^†	2.27 (1.81–2.84)^†	2.85 (1.99–4.09)^†	3.72 (2.28–6.07)^†
Getting the 2009 swine flu vaccine is effective (ref: Not effective)	8.07 (5.01–13.02)^†	3.25 (1.90–5.56)^†	12.31 (6.26–24.17)^†	6.91 (3.08–15.50)^†
Vaccine Risk Perception	0.31 (0.22–0.44)^†	0.57 (0.39–0.84)^**	0.42 (0.23–0.78)^**	0.50 (0.27–0.92)^*
Agree that newly developed vaccine is safe (ref: Disagree)	7.29 (2.81–18.89)^†	3.29 (1.33–8.11)^*	22.77 (10.46–49.55)^†	20.25 (6.47–63.40)^†
Trust in government	1.97 (1.50–2.57)^†	1.04 (0.73–1.49)	2.30 (1.34–3.92)^**	1.40 (0.76–2.60)
Get seasonal flu vaccine regularly (ref: seldom)	6.61 (4.33–10.08)^†	3.68 (2.12–6.39)^†	3.97 (1.86–8.46)^†	2.64 (1.13–6.18)^*
Subjective Priority	2.83 (1.83–4.36)^†	1.74 (0.97–3.15)	3.17 (1.46–6.89)^**	1.93 (0.69–5.42)

Interpersonal Level	N=1997	N=1997^d; R²=0.47	N=1228	N=1228
Size of influential network	1.87 (1.69–2.06)^†	1.67 (1.51–1.86)^†	3.11 (2.64–3.66)^†	3.69 (2.81–4.85)^†
Most friends/family got the vaccine (ref: very few)	13.12 (7.73–22.28)^†	8.31 (4.75–14.55)^†	2.05 (1.03–4.06)^*	0.56 (0.23–1.36)

Institutional Level	N=1977	N=1977^d; R²=0.34	N=1218	N=1218
Have a regular health care provider	2.34 (1.12–4.89)^*	1.06 (0.42–2.69)	0.99 (0.38–2.55)	0.49 (0.12–1.98)
Information from health care Provider (ref: None at all)
A little	2.40 (1.21–4.74)^*	1.97 (0.83–4.69)	1.43 (0.42–4.92)	0.92 (0.29–2.85)
Some	4.20 (2.34–7.55)^†	2.72 (1.40–5.27)^**	2.20 (0.76–6.38)	1.34 (0.51–3.56)
A lot	6.50 (3.45–12.23)^†	4.43 (2.23–8.78)^†	4.39 (1.52–12.64)^**	2.80 (1.22–6.44)^*
Doctor wants you to get swine flu vaccine	8.38 (4.94–14.23)^†	7.45 (4.63–12.01)^†	11.52 (4.13–30.65)^†	13.44 (7.11–25.42)^†

Community Level	N=2042	N=2042^d; R²=0.08	N=1252	N=1252
Community Risk	1.60 (1.19–2.16)^**	1.61 (1.19–2.18)^**	1.64 (1.09–2.47)^*	1.66 (1.09–2.54)^**

Policy Level	N=2039	N=2039^d; R²=0.08	N=1255	N=1255
Have health insurance	1.72 (0.92–3.24)	1.28 (0.63–2.63)	0.85 (0.45–1.59)	0.93 (0.53–1.63)
Objective Priority	1.49 (0.98–2.27)	1.68 (1.09–2.59)^*	1.17 (0.59–2.33)	1.26 (0.63–2.53)

Adjusted Wald chi-square or t-test p value≤0.05;

^**

p<0.01;

^†

p<0.001;

Comparison to those who did not get the vaccine;

Comparison to those who do not intend to get the vaccine in the next month. Large Odds Ratios in this analysis reflect the small number of people who intend to get the vaccine and should be interpreted with caution; we do not report R2 for these models due to the large Odds Ratios. However, we present this analysis as a comparison of the determinants of behavior and behavioral intent, important to accurately identify determinants of vaccine uptake in a cross-sectional framework;

Adjusted for demographics and other variables in the same level of the SEM;

N varies between adjusted models based on missing data. Unadjusted models were constrained to include only cases also included in the adjusted model for the same level of the social ecological framework; we used listwise deletion for each multiple logistic regression model.