Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levine, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Trent, R. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Levine, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Trent, R. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Swine Flu Immunization Program

A Comparison of Inoculation Recipients and Nonrecipients

Arnold J. Levine

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, West Virginia University

Roger B. Trent

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, West Virginia University

The swine flu immunization program was a massive, government-sponsored effort in response to the threat of an expected epidemic. This program was surrounded by a great deal of controversy and uncertainty, and when the program ended only about one-third of the national target population had been immunized. Using the orienting framework of the Health Belief Model, this survey compares a sample of recipients with nonrecipients (n = 235). Inoculation is strongly and apparently non-spuriously associated with whether one's family, friends, and other peers have been inoculated. This personal influence does not act by increasing one's perceived risk of an epidemic. Perceived risk acts independently to increase the likelihood of inoculation. As in most preventive health behavior, SES is positively related to participation although not strongly. Married respondents are also more likely to receive a shot. The following factors apparently play no significant role in this sample: advice of physician, fear generated by the media, skepticism about the government's role in the campaign, and selected measures of personality characteristics.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 1, No. 4, 195-215 (1978)
DOI: 10.1177/016327877800100407
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?