Table 1.
Associations regarding the willingness to accept a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, third dose, annual vaccination, and the vaccination of children, with variables of trust and perception among Chileans (n = 744).
| Outcome Variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanatory Variables | Willingness to Receive a SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination | Willingness to Receive a Third Dose Vaccination | Willingness to Receive an Annual Vaccination |
Willingness to Vaccinate Children |
|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | ||
| Trust in vaccines | (a) | 4.1 ** (2.0–8.2) | 3.2 ** (1.8–5.6) | 2.1 ** (1.6–2.8) | 1.9 ** (1.4–2.6) |
| Trust in scientists and medical professionals | (b) | 2.4 * (1.2–5.0) | 2.8 ** (1.5–5.0) | 2.2 ** (1.6–3.1) | 2.6 ** (1.8–3.6) |
| Trust in politicians | (c) | 2.5 * (1.1–5.6) | 1.5 (0.8–2.6) | 1.2 (0.9–1.6) | 1.3 (0.9–1.7) |
| Trust in religious leaders | (d) | 0.9 (0.5–1.8) | 0.7 (0.4–1.0) | 0.7 * (0.6–1.0) | 0.7 ** (0.5–0.9) |
| Trust in relatives | (e) | 1.7 (0.9–3.3) | 1.3 (0.8–2.1) | 1.1 (0.8–1.4) | 1.2 (0.9–1.6) |
| Trust in social media | (f) | 0.9 (0.4–1.9) | 0.4 ** (0.2–0.7) | 1.0 (0.7–1.3) | 0.7 * (0.5–1.0) |
| Trust in press | (g) | 0.8 (0.3–1.7) | 1.4 (0.8–2.6) | 1.1 (0.8–1.5) | 1.1 (0.8–1.6) |
| Perceived effectiveness of prevention practices | (h) | 2.1 * (1.0–4.5) | 2.4 ** (1.3–4.5) | 2.4 ** (1.6–3.4) | 2.4 ** (1.6–3.5) |
| Perceived risk of infection | (i) | 2.0 * (1.1–3.7) | 1.5 (0.9–2.3) | 1.4 * (1.1–1.8) | 1.2 (0.9–1.5) |
| Preoccupation regarding side effects of vaccines | (j) | 0.6 ** (0.4–0.9) | 0.9 (0.6–1.2) | 0.9 (0.8–1.1) | 0.8 * (0.7–1.0) |
| Perceived comprehension of vaccines | (k) | 0.7 (0.4–1.2) | 0.6 (0.4–1.0) | 1.1 (0.8–1.4) | 1.1 (0.8–1.4) |
| Perceived prevention of severity due to vaccines | (l) | 1.3 (0.9–1.9) | 1.0 (0.7–1.3) | 1.0 (0.8–1.1) | 0.8 ** (0.7–0.9) |
| Perceived relaxation of prevention practices thanks to vaccination | (m) | 1.4 (0.8–2.3) | 0.7 (0.5–1.1) | 0.7 ** (0.6–0.9) | 1.0 (0.8–1.3) |
| Perceived possibility of the vaccination stopping the pandemic | (n) | 1.3 (0.9–2.0) | 1.4 * (1.0–1.9) | 1.4 ** (1.2–1.7) | 1.3 ** (1.1–1.5) |
| Perceived impact on quality of life | (o) | 0.6 * (0.3–1.0) | 1.0 (0.6–1.6) | 0.9 (0.7–1.1) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) |
| COVID-19 infection in family | (p) | 0.7 (0.3–1.7) | 0.9 (0.5–1.7) | 1.0 (0.7–1.4) | 0.8 (0.5–1.1) |
| Age | (q) | 1.1 * (1.0–1.1) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 (1.0–1.0) | 1.0 ** (1.0–1.1) |
| Gender (Women = 1) | (r) | 1.3 (0.5–3.2) | 0.9 (0.4–1.7) | 1.1 (0.8–1.6) | 1.3 (0.9–1.9) |
| Schooling | (s) | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) | 1.0 (0.8–1.2) | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) | 0.9 (0.8–1.0) |
| Multivariate model | Ordered logit | Logit | Ordered logit | Ordered logit | |
Columns (1), (3), and (4) show the results of the ordered logit multivariate models. Column (2) shows logit model results. For all columns, cells show odd ratio coefficients and, in parenthesis, confidence intervals at 95%. For each outcome variable, Table 1 shows the model with the best goodness of fit and parsimony compared to other candidate models, which was selected using Akaike Information Criterion (see Supplementary Table S3). * and ** refer to significant levels at 5% and 1%.