MAGPAPABAKUNA KA BA?

VACCINATION KNOWLEDGE AND VACCINE HESITANCY

AMONG COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES STUDENTS

OF CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY

PRACTICAL RESEARCH 1

An Undergraduate Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

Central Philippine University

Iloilo City

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

By

Demonteverde, Mitch Pauleen B.

Labrador, Angelo C.
Macado, Hernalyn D.
Pornel, Zean Ellen P.
Sumbe, Valerie
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TITLE PAGE_______________________________________________ i

TABLE OF CONTENTS______________________________________ ii

I. INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study ______________________________________ 1

Objectives of the Study _______________________________________ 4

Hypotheses _________________________________________________ 5

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework __________________________ 5

Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Variables________________ 9

Significance of the Study______________________________________ 11

Scope and Limitations________________________________________ 13

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

COVID-19 Pandemic in Relation to Vaccination and Vaccines________ 14

Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Variables______________ 15

Vaccination Knowledge and Age_________________________ 16

Vaccination Knowledge and Sex _________________________ 17

Vaccination Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status __________ 17

Relationship of Vaccination Hesitancy and Variables _______________ 18

ii
 Vaccination Hesitancy and Age ___________________________ 18

Vaccination Hesitancy and Sex ___________________________ 18

Vaccination Hesitancy and Socioeconomic Status ____________ 19

Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Vaccine Hesitancy _______ 20

Synthesis __________________________________________________ 20

III. METHODOLOGY

Research Design ____________________________________________ 22

The Study Population and Sampling Procedure ____________________ 23

Data Collection ____________________________________________ 24

Instrumentation _____________________________________________ 24

Data Analysis ______________________________________________ 28

Ethical Considerations _______________________________________ 29

REFERENCES___________________________________________________ 30

APPENDICES___________________________________________________ 33

Informed Consent __________________________________________ 34

3 Part Survey Questionnaire __________________________________ 39

Vaccine Hesitancy Scale _____________________________________ 40

Knowledge and Attitude Toward Vaccination Scale________________ 43

Mentor/Mentee Agreement Contract ____________________________ 49

iii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

The debate around vaccines has been in the spotlight over the last few months in the

Philippines, both within the scientific community and the public. Two years into this pandemic,

COVID-19 is far from the beginning when it started. According to Statistics and Research

(2020), the researchers found out that the cases have been surpassed by 106 million cases, and

dreadfully, more than 2.3 million people have lost their lives to the virus. To prevent, ways and

methods such as lockdowns and stay-at-home instructions are effective to stop spreading

transmission, especially if there is community support. Hence, these schemes have significant

economic and social impacts.

According to the World Health Organization (2021), one of the greatest achievements of

public health is considered to be vaccination. Vaccination programs have aided the decline in

mortality and morbidity of various infectious diseases. Albeit recognized as one of the most

successful public health measures, vaccination is observed as unsafe and unnecessary by a

growing number of individuals. One threat to the success of vaccination programs is considered

to be the lack of confidence in vaccines. In the study of Quirk, C. (2019), vaccine hesitancy is

believed to be responsible for decreasing vaccine coverage and an increased risk of vaccine-

preventable disease outbreaks and epidemics.

1
 In the present day, according to many public health experts, public confidence in

vaccines is waning. Moreover, researchers investigating this phenomenon are now abandoning

expressions such as “vaccine resistance” or “vaccine opposition”, increasingly replacing them

with the new term “vaccine hesitancy” to describe the spread of vaccine reluctance (Peretti-

Watel, P. 2015). According to the working group on vaccine hesitancy appointed by the World

Health Organizations’ Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunizations (2015);

vaccine hesitancy “refers to delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of

vaccination services”, and this phenomenon “is complex and context-specific varying across

time, place and vaccines.” Several literature reviews have already been devoted to this issue.

Thus, articles using the vaccine hesitancy terminology have mainly been published in journals

specialized in vaccination or pediatric issues, but also more in generalist journals (Peretti-Watel,

P. et al., 2015).

According to the Statista Research Department (2021), as of July 25, 2021, over 13

million people received the first of two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine in the Philippines. In

contrast, roughly 11.4 million already received both doses of the vaccine. COVID-19 vaccination

in the Philippines started in March 2021 and the country aims to vaccinate 58 million people by

the end of the year. Of about 27.5% of the world, the population has received at least one dose of

a COVID-19 vaccine, and 13.9% is fully vaccinated. About 3.94 billion doses have been

administered globally, and 29.03 million are now administered each day. Only 1.1% of people in

low-income countries have received at least one dose (World Health Organization, 2021).

A research study by Robertson D. et al. (2021), has sought to estimate the level of

potential COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (delay or refusal) in the United Kingdom and identify

categories within the population where it might be higher by measuring expressed willingness to

2
receive an approved vaccination. The main goal was to understand vaccine reluctance on a

psychological level to develop measures to boost vaccine acceptance rates, to which this study

will also seek to contribute. Also, the researchers have measured readiness to get vaccinated

against COVID-19 (as a measure of vaccination reluctance) as well as a variety of explanatory

factors. To measure specific opinions regarding the benefits and hazards of a COVID-19

vaccination as to vaccine knowledge in which the researchers incorporated an approach: general

trust and mistrust with items pertains to individuals who I feel disrespected and vulnerable to

exploitation (marginalized), believe doctors look down on them, believe in conspiracy theories,

hold particular worldviews (e.g., individualism), and are dissatisfied (e.g., express a "need for

chaos") are more likely to be distrustful. Moreover, in the same study, the investigation did not

focus on convenience because the United Kingdom has universal free access to healthcare, but

the researchers did include questions about access via general practitioner practices, pharmacies,

and schools, which are the most likely delivery methods. The researchers hypothesized that

vaccination apprehension would be linked to specific confidence and complacent views about the

knowledge pertaining COVID-19 vaccine, as well as broad mistrust makers. People who say

they definitely will not get vaccinated know less than those who say they probably will not, who

know less than those who say they probably will, who know less than those who say they

definitely will. A lack of perceived benefits and a knowledge gap distinguish the vaccine-hesitant

from vaccine acceptance during the COVID-19 pandemic (Robertson D. et al., 2021).

To the best of our knowledge, there is a scarce amount of research on this topic in Asia

specifically in the Philippines, especially in regards to students. Henceforth, the researchers seek

to study the vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy among bachelor of science in

psychology students of Central Philippine University; this study aims to further spread awareness

3
and provide further literature in regards to knowledge about vaccination and vaccine hesitancy.

The researchers want to examine the effectiveness of strategies designed to shape people’s

behavior without relying on their beliefs about vaccination. We want to focus on strategies that

make salient a new set of outcomes through the use of programs that tie incentives or sanctions

to vaccination behavior and strategies that minimize opportunities for deliberation by requiring

vaccination to obtain a desired outcome (e.g., access to education or employment). These

strategies are particularly interesting given that they may prove to be an effective way to lead

people with ambivalent or unfavorable. The researcher’s motivation comes from their lack of

vaccination knowledge resulting in a hesitancy to get vaccinated and to know why a lot of their

relatives and Filipinos in general based on the mentioned statistics choose not to get vaccinated.

It is also worthwhile to note that causes of vaccine hesitancy vary from country to country as

well as the diversity of culture and beliefs. To boot, this study will look into which variables may

contribute to peoples' knowledge about vaccines and their hesitancy towards them.

Objectives

This study aims to explore the vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy among

College of Arts and Sciences students of Central Philippine University when grouped according

to age, sex, and socioeconomic status.

The study specifically aims to:

1. To know the demographic profile of respondents.

2. To determine the levels of vaccination knowledge among BS Psychology students of

Central Philippine University when classified as a whole and grouped according to age,

sex, and socioeconomic status.

4
 3. To determine the levels of vaccine hesitancy among BS Psychology students of Central

Philippine University when classified as a whole and grouped according to age, sex, and

socioeconomic status.

4. To determine if there is a significant difference in the vaccination knowledge among BS

Psychology students of Central Philippine University according to age, sex, and

socioeconomic status.

5. To determine if there is a significant difference in the vaccine hesitancy among BS

Psychology students of Central Philippine University according to age, sex, and

socioeconomic status.

6. To determine the relationship between vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy

among BS Psychology students of Central Philippine University.

Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference in the vaccination knowledge among BS Psychology

students of Central Philippine University according to age, sex, and socioeconomic

status.

2. There is no significant difference in the vaccine hesitancy among BS Psychology students

of Central Philippine University according to their age, sex, and socioeconomic status.

3. There is no significant relationship between vaccination knowledge and vaccine

hesitancy among BS Psychology students of Central Philippine University.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

5
 This study is anchored with the vaccine hesitancy model or 3Cs model (SAGE Working

Group on Vaccine Hesitancy, 2015) supported by locus of control theory (Joelson R., 2017, cited

Rotter, 1954).

According to SAGE Working Group (2015), vaccine hesitancy refers to delay in

acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. It is complex and

context-specific, varying across time, place, and vaccines, and it is influenced by factors (3Cs

model) such as confidence, complacency, and convenience.

Based on the 3Cs model, confidence is defined as trust in 1) the effectiveness and safety

of vaccines; 2) the system that delivers them, including the reliability and competence of the

health services and health professionals and 3) the motivations of the policy-makers who decide

on the needed vaccines. Vaccine complacency exists where perceived risks of vaccine-

preventable diseases are low and vaccination is not deemed a necessary preventive action.

Complacency about a particular vaccine or vaccination, in general, is influenced by many

factors, including other life/health responsibilities that may be seen to be more important then.

Immunization program success may, paradoxically, result in complacency and ultimately,

hesitancy, as individuals weigh risks of vaccines against risks of diseases that are no longer

common. Self-efficacy (the self-perceived or real ability of an individual to take action to

vaccinate) also influences the degree to which complacency determines hesitancy. Vaccine

convenience is measured by the extent to which physical availability, affordability and

willingness-to-pay, geographical accessibility, ability to understand (language and health

literacy), and appeal of immunization services affect uptake. The quality of the service (real

and/or perceived) and the degree to which vaccination services are delivered at a time and place

6
and in a cultural context that is convenient and comfortable also affects the decision to be

vaccinated and could lead to vaccine hesitancy.

In line with the model above, Peretti-Watel, P. et al., (2015) view vaccine hesitancy as a

decision-making process, it serves as an aid in distinguishing two very different types of vaccine

hesitancy: people with poor knowledge of and indifference to vaccination issues, as well as

erratic vaccination behaviors, and, the other, people who are much interested and committed to

vaccination issues, prone to information seeking and long and balanced decision-making. The

study of Opel et al. (2011) further supports this model; according to their findings, parents

frequently claimed that they prefer to rely on their research on vaccines to come to an informed

decision, rather than deferring to their child’s doctor, capturing an aspect of commitment to risk

culture. At which point, vaccine hesitancy is considered to be a kind of “decision-making process

that depends on people’s level of commitment to healthism/risk culture and their level of

confidence toward health authorities and mainstream medicine” (Paretti-Wattel, P. et. al., 2015).

Consequently, people who have less knowledge and are indifferent to vaccination issues, are

more likely to be hesitant towards vaccinations than people who are the opposite. From a

psychological perspective, the axis echoes the concept of locus of control: some people believe

that they have control over events in their lives, they possess an internal locus of control,

whereas others with an external locus of control, adopt a more fatalistic attitude, believing that

their lives are influenced by forces outside of their control such as fate or luck (Paretti-Wattel, P.

et. al., 2015).

Being said, locus of control is defined as an individual’s belief system regarding the

causes of his or her experiences and the factors to which that person attributes success or failure.

This concept developed by Julian B. Rotter is usually divided into two categories: internal and

7
external. When a person has an internal locus of control, that person attributes success to his or

her efforts and abilities; and so, a person who expects to succeed will be more motivated and

more likely to learn. While a person with an external locus of control, attributes his or her

success to luck or fate, will be less likely to make the effort needed to learn (Joelson R., 2017,

cited Rotter, 1954). This theory will support this study as a basis for determining the levels of

vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy among the students. 

Given the gaps of the current studies, the conceptual framework will serve as a bridge to

determine the relationship between the levels of vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy by

connecting age, sex, socioeconomic status.

Figure 1. Paradigm showing the connections between vaccination knowledge and vaccine

hesitancy of College of Arts and Sciences students of Central Philippines University when

8
grouped according to sex, age, and socioeconomic status. In this study, the significant difference

of the above-mentioned variables will be taken when grouped according to age, sex, and

socioeconomic status; In addition, the relationship between vaccination knowledge and vaccine

hesitancy will be tested with the aforementioned variables. The Vaccine Hesitancy Scale

(Shapiro G. et al., 2017) and the Knowledge and Attitude Toward Vaccination Scale (Cvjetkovic

SJ., Jeremic VLj., & Tiosavljevic DV, 2017) will be used to measure the vaccine hesitancy and

vaccine knowledge of the students.

Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Variables

To facilitate a better understanding of the study, the following terms that the researchers

will use in this study will give their conceptual and operational definitions.

Age. It is defined as the interval of time between the day, month, and year of birth and the

day and year of occurrence of the event expressed in the largest completed unit of solar time

such as years for adults and children and months, weeks, days, hours or minutes of life, as

appropriate, for infants under one year of age (Handbook of Vital Statistics Systems and

Methods, 2012). In this study, age is defined as the span of years you have lived whether they are

below 19 years old, 20-22 years old and 23 years old, and above

Sex. It refers to the biological differences between males and females such as the

genitalia and genetic differences (Newman T., 2021). In this study, sex is defined as biological

characteristics that will classify student participants as female or male.

Socioeconomic Status (SES). It is characterized as a combined measure of an individual's

or family's economic and social position relative to others based on income, education, and

occupation (GOP, 2011). In this study, the researchers adapted the range established by the

Philippine Statistics Authority survey conducted in April 2020. Specifically, the categories are

9
the following: Poor (Less than PHP 10,481) income, Low-income class (between PHP 10,481

and PHP 20,962), Lower middle-income class (PHP 20,962 and PHP 41,924), Middle middle-

income class (PHP 41,924 and PHP 73,367), Upper middle-income class (PHP 73,367 and PHP

125,772), Upper-income class (PHP 125,772 and PHP 209,620), Rich (PHP 209,620 and above).

Vaccination Knowledge. It is a term used for information obtained and understood about

vaccine ingredients, vaccine development, how vaccines work, the immunization schedule, and

the burden of vaccine-preventable diseases aimed at the general public to help people make

informed decisions about vaccine issues (World Health Organization, 2021). In this study,

vaccination knowledge is defined as the overall awareness, insight, and attitude about the

vaccines and will be measured using the Knowledge and Attitude Toward Vaccination Scale

(Cvjetkovic SJ., Jeremic VLj., & Tiosavljevic DV, 2017). This survey questionnaire consists of

seventeen (18) items utilizing a 5-point rating scale with 1 as “strongly disagree” and 6 as

“strongly agree” with categories such as high vaccination knowledge, moderate vaccination

knowledge, and low vaccination knowledge.

Vaccine Hesitancy. According to MacDonald, N. (2015), vaccine hesitancy refers to a

delay in accepting or refusing vaccinations although vaccination services are readily available.

Vaccine hesitancy is complicated and context-dependent, altering by time, place, and vaccine.

Confidence, complacency, and convenience are all variables that influence it. Vaccine hesitancy

is thought to be the cause of lower vaccine coverage and a higher risk of vaccine-preventable

disease outbreaks and epidemics (Laberge C. et al., 2013). In this study, vaccine hesitancy is

described in this study as the decision of the participants about delaying vaccination, accepting

vaccination but unsure in doing so, to refusing vaccination, all due to given factors that will be

measured using the Vaccine Hesitancy Survey (Shapiro G. et al., 2017).  The survey

10
questionnaire consists of ten (9) items utilizing a 5-point rating scale with 1 as “strongly

disagree” and 6 as “strongly agree” with categories such as high vaccine hesitancy, moderate

vaccine hesitancy, and low vaccine hesitancy.

Significance of the Study

           This study will benefit the following:

City Government. The government can have an in-depth understanding of the vaccination

hesitancy among students and can use the findings of this study to understand issues on the part

of the community in terms of vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy. Also, this study

could help determine the factors and causes of why young students have a certain opinion

towards vaccination which could raise awareness on the government on how knowledgeable

students are towards vaccination. This may subsequently allow the government to make

appropriate decisions and measures, and continue to advocate in establishing vaccination

awareness activities and programs which will enhance public health in general.

Healthcare Professionals. They will gain insight into why students are hesitant to

participate in vaccination or it could also bring light to inform the community towards

vaccination. Being said, this will motivate healthcare professionals to be more responsive in their

practice adhering to ethicality, and formally educate students and the community on the pros &

11
cons of vaccination. To boot, they could learn more about personal perceptions and

comprehension of people in their field of expertise.

Institution (CPU). The outcome of this study will benefit the institution to assist and

provide research-based information to students. The findings will help the institution develop

programs to fully educate students as well as the faculty and staff about vaccines. In addition, it

will help them come up with new strategies in pervading information so that they will be able to

improve their knowledge to avoid misinformation.

School Administration. This study will benefit the school administration as it will create

and offer knowledge to transfuse information to the entire student body as well as the faculty

regarding vaccines. The school administration will be given a better understanding and research-

based data that is improved and applicable to meet the needs and goals of the institution to

educate students.

Guidance Counsellors. The guidance counselors will be provided with stronger

information that will enhance their expertise in handling counseling sessions towards students

who have difficulty and fear regarding vaccines. The findings of this study will aid counselors in

developing programs and interventions aimed at assisting students who are hesitant to be

vaccinated and in endowing with broad guidance on nearly any topic.

Parents. This study could raise attentiveness on how vaccination is perceived by parents

for their children. This will allow parents to properly attend and educate their children regarding

vaccination for they hold great influence over their children, which enables them to guide their

child in making the right choice in the state of vaccination. 

12
 Students. The students can gain awareness towards their level of knowledge and

hesitancy toward vaccination as well as it will serve as a guide and help to fully understand how

important vaccination is. 

Future Researchers. The study will further open doors for future researchers to expand

the learning concerning vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy. This may serve as a

source of information and further literature to improve future studies and may help them to

develop a new localized tool or test for future use.

Scope and Limitation of the Study 

This study will be conducted online, through a Google survey form which will be shared

on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. The survey will be limited

to only 180 (estimated sample size) Bachelor of Science in Psychology students of Central

Philippine University. Since this study only covered a specific population, the findings in this

study hold only for the demographic characteristics of the samples. In addition, this study will

include age, sex, and socioeconomic status as independent variables while the vaccination

knowledge and vaccine hesitancy of the college students will be studied as a dependent variable.

The researchers will utilize a standardized survey questionnaire which is The Vaccine Hesitancy

Scale (Shapiro G. et al, 2017) and the Knowledge and Attitude Toward Vaccination Scale

(Cvjetkovic SJ., Jeremic VLj., & Tiosavljevic DV., 2017), then it will be subjected to validation

process and pilot testing. This study will only look into the significant difference of the

vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy of college students towards the said demographics

as well as the significant relationship between the above-mentioned variables.

13
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, the review of related literature will be consolidated to support the findings

and results of this research, the studies cited in this research will serve as a guide under the

following headings: (a) Covid-19 Pandemic in Relation to Vaccination and Vaccines, (b)

Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Variables, (c) Relationship of Vaccination

Hesitancy and Variables, (d) Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Vaccine Hesitancy, (e)

Synthesis.

Covid-19 Pandemic in Relation to Vaccination and Vaccines

         According to the Journal of Clinical and Medical Researches, since the emergency of the

novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that is caused by SARS-Cov-2 in 2019, researchers have

been on the move to find solutions to mitigate the spread of the virus. Various control measures

14
have been put in place by governments under guidelines and recommendations of key global

agencies with the world health organization (WHO) leading in providing information to help

fight the pandemic. Multi-agency research efforts have been gearing towards developing

vaccines for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 infection. Multi-agency research efforts

have been geared towards developing vaccines for active immunization to prevent COVID-19

infection. Based on the mechanism by which a vaccine protects an individual against COVID-19

infection, it has been found that the already rolled out vaccines are mRNA (Pfizer and Moderna)

and vector (AstraZeneca) vaccine structured. There is also China's Sinovac vaccine which has

been in place for the past few years. The four vaccines reviewed here are administered in two

doses some days apart. Currently, no vaccine has a safety threat and the efficacies are 95% for

COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer), 94.1% for mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna),

70.4%forChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine / AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccine and 78% for Sinovac

respectively. Even though these efficacies imply that the vaccines offer significant protection

against the infection, further research and evaluation should go on to achieve higher efficacies

while addressing any safety concerns that may go beyond local and systemic reactions that occur

on patients after vaccination (Halim M., 2021).

Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Variables

In a Pre-Campaign Cross-Sectional Study conducted in Oman with a total of 3000

participants, more than half of those respondents said they would take the vaccine, and 84% said

they would also take the second dose. Furthermore, if any side effects were experienced, 97.5

percent of them would notify the health institute. Uncertainty about the vaccine's safety

accounted for 60% of those who were unwilling to get vaccinated. Moreover, males were more

willing to take the vaccine compared to females (Al-Marshoudi S. et.al., 2021). Women are more

15
concerned about the vaccine's negative side effects than they are about contracting COVID-19.

( Neumann-Böhme, S. et.al., 2019). Females were found to be more knowledgeable about

COVID-19 and to have positive practices and attitudes toward non-pharmaceutical preventive

interventions in a KAP survey conducted among the Saudi community. (Al Hanawi et al., 2020)

Adults over the age of 46 were nearly twice as likely as those between the ages of 18 and 25 to

accept the COVID-19 vaccine. (Abebe H., 2021). 

Vaccination Knowledge and Age

         According to the study of Educating children and adolescents about vaccines: A review

of current literature, until recently, research on vaccine knowledge has focused primarily on age.

Although adolescent knowledge and views are gaining momentum within the literature, another

interesting avenue to explore is the potential to educate children to influence their parents, which

is particularly salient given the persistence of vaccine knowledge among adults. Operating under

the rationale that children can influence the knowledge and attitudes of their parents who will

consequently change their behavior, much of conservation education is directed at children. With

many parents reporting that their children influence their values and attitudes, several

longitudinal studies indicate that children’s early values predict small but significant changes in

parental values over time. In addition to this bi-directional knowledge transfer wherein children

can influence their parents' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, potentially reducing anti-

vaccine notions, targeting children in pro-vaccine education interventions can contribute to

16
future vaccine-acceptors while increasing parental acceptance of their child’s vaccination

(Maisonnueve A. et al., 2018).

Vaccination Knowledge and Sex

Age and gender were not significantly associated with vaccine acceptance in the

multivariable analysis, though females were significantly less favorable to vaccination than

males. Female gender and direct experience with the disease were related to vaccine knowledge

in an inverse relationship. (Galle, F. et al. 2021)

Respondents who had previously experienced the disease believed they were immune to a

new infection. In contrast, knowledge inversely correlated with the experience of a relative being

infected with COVID-19, implying that a lack of knowledge may have led respondents to

disregard control measures, increasing their risk of contracting the disease.

Vaccination Knowledge and Socioeconomic Status

According to the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

(2021), when compared to those from higher-income families, participants from lower-income

families were more likely to believe COVID-19 is extremely dangerous.

In a Bangladesh study, COVID-19 vaccine awareness was found to be influenced by educational

level, communication media (mass media), and place of residence of the important factors

associated with COVID-19 vaccine knowledge at an educational level. Participants with a

college education or higher status understand the COVID-19 vaccine than those with primary

education. The educational level is one of the important factors associated with vaccine

awareness. Participants with a college education or higher comprehend that the COVID-19

vaccine is way better than those with primary education. The findings of the current study are

consistent with those of previous studies conducted in Syria and Bangladesh (Mesesle M., 2021).

17
Relationship of Vaccination Hesitancy and Variables

         According to Fridman A. et al., (2021), Covid-19 and vaccine hesitancy, vaccine attitudes

are also influenced by a variety of demographic and ideological factors For example, perceptions

of vaccine risk differ among individuals of different ethnic backgrounds and there is extant work

demonstrating a positive correlation between socioeconomic status (SES), age, sex and vaccine

hesitancy Socio-demographic factors are also linked to vaccine-related behaviors: among college

students, those whose parents have attained a higher level of education are more likely to get

immunized and researchers have identified age as a predictor for receiving the influenza vaccine.

Vaccine Hesitancy and Age

According to Aziz et al. (2018), 42.8% of females were having comparatively good

knowledge of vaccination than males who only had 36.2%. Educational level with a positive

association has significant effects on the knowledge score. The age group of parents ≤25 years of

age was having a good knowledge score of 51.9% than older parents. Parents with higher income

show good mean scores and good knowledge of vaccination in comparison to parents having a

low family income. 

Vaccine Hesitancy and Sex

According to the current literature on SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, the female gender was

associated with increased vaccine reluctance. The pandemic has probably emphasized the need

to close the gender gap in vaccine hesitancy, which has previously been examined only in

pregnant women. Males were more likely to receive COVID-19 immunizations, according to a

study evaluating gender roles in vaccine reluctance. This may be due to their increased

awareness of hazards as well as their lack of belief in conspiracy theories.

18
 The findings highlight the importance of further research into the role of gender in

vaccine apprehension, taking into account the epidemiological and clinical aspects of the disease

in question, as well as various geographical and cultural contexts (Reno et al. 2021).

Vaccine Hesitancy and Socioeconomic Status

According to Reno et al. (2021), lower levels of education and income were to be

predictors of vaccine hesitancy, confirming the findings of a prior study conducted in the French

population following the first wave in July 2020. This relationship is in contrast to prior research

on child immunization, which found that parents with greater education and affluence were more

concerned about vaccine safety.

A study revealed how family economic hardship represented a determinant of vaccine

hesitancy, while no association was found between economic hardship and vaccine refusal. On

the other hand, the low education of both mother and father was a valid predictor of the outright

refusal of all vaccines, while hesitancy seemed to not be affected by parental education

(Bertoncello et al., 2020). 

Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Vaccine Hesitancy

According to a study, Vaccination Knowledge and Vaccine Hesitancy are interrelated.

One of the factors implicated in vaccine hesitancy is the level of parental education and studies

in the past have demonstrated greater distrust for medical professionals amongst communities

with less formal education. Due to the lower education level, their information about vaccines

and their effect is less as compared to more educated parents and the parents seek out alternative

sources such as family members and other parents in the community or the media for reliable

information (Kumar et al., 2016). Vaccination acceptance relies on individuals’ knowledge,

19
information, and awareness of when, where, and who should be vaccinated, and that the

immunization information needs to be dispersed properly to increase the knowledge of parents

which will largely aid the reduction of vaccine hesitancy. According to a report by the Strategic

Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) in 2014, the behaviors responsible for vaccine hesitancy can

be related to confidence, convenience, and complacency. Given if you are more knowledgeable

on how effective and good side effects Covid-19 vaccines are, you will not be able to feel

hesitant in injecting one vaccination.  

Synthesis

Covid-19 Pandemic in Relation to Vaccination and Vaccines illustrates that multi-agency

research efforts have been geared towards developing vaccines for active immunization to

prevent COVID-19 infection. In addition to this, further research and evaluation should go on to

achieve higher efficacies of the vaccines available while addressing any safety concerns that may

go beyond local and systemic reactions that occur on patients after vaccination (Halim M.,

2021). 

While Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Variables, and Relationship of

Vaccination Hesitancy and Variables outlines the influences between vaccination knowledge,

vaccine hesitancy, age, sex, and socioeconomic status. A growing amount of literature suggests

that there is a bidirectional influence among children and parents regarding vaccination, and a

growing evidence base to indicate that adolescents are willing to be involved in their health

which in turn can significantly influence parental vaccination decisions.  The age group of

parents ≤ 25 years of age was having a good knowledge score of vaccination of 51.9% than older

parents (Aziz et al., 2018). Although age and gender were not significantly associated with

20
vaccine acceptance in the multivariable analysis, females were significantly less favorable to

vaccination than males. Female gender and direct experience with the disease were related to

vaccine knowledge in an inverse relationship (Galle, F. et al. 2021). Males were more likely to

receive COVID-19 immunizations, according to a study evaluating gender roles in vaccine

reluctance. Still, further research is much needed in the role of gender in vaccine apprehension

(Reno et al. 2021). The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

(2021), suggests that participants from lower-income families were more likely to believe

COVID-19 is extremely dangerous when compared to those from higher-income families. And

according to the study of Bertoncello et al. (2020), it was revealed that family economic hardship

represented a determinant of vaccine hesitancy, while no association was found between

economic hardship and vaccine refusal. 

Meanwhile, on the Relationship of Vaccination Knowledge and Vaccine Hesitancy, both

are interrelated wherein less information about vaccines and their effect due to lower education

from parents becomes a factor that affects vaccine hesitancy (Kumar et al., 2016). On a further

note, the behaviors responsible for vaccine hesitancy can be related to confidence, convenience,

and complacency. Given if you are more knowledgeable on how effective and good side effects

Covid-19 vaccines are, you will not be able to feel hesitant in injecting one vaccination (SAGE,

2014).  

The provided literature above supports this study to move further with the investigation

in relation to the participants’ vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy towards the Covid-

19 vaccines when grouped according to age, sex, and socioeconomic status.

21
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

         This chapter describes the research design, the study population and the sampling

procedures, how the data were collected, the instrument used, and the data processing and

analysis. This chapter also provides information on the research methods; also, it includes the

process we will be used in collecting information and the data for the purpose used by the

researchers that can help us to initialize more information about the problem. The survey

research method will determine the study.

Research Design

           Descriptive research (Mccombes, 2016) seeks to characterize a population, condition, or

phenomenon systematically and reliably. It also examines one or more variables using a variety

of research methods. In this study, the researchers will be employing a research approach to

explain the descriptive and statistical results of the differences of the independent variables (age,

sex, socioeconomic status) to the dependent variable (vaccination knowledge and vaccine

hesitancy) using standardized tests. In addition, correlational research is a type of non-

experimental research in which the researcher measures two variables and assesses the statistical

relationship (Price et al., 2013). In this study, the relationship between vaccination knowledge

and vaccine hesitancy will be tested. The survey will be employed to gather data about the

demographic profile of the respondent and in measuring the dependent variables using research-

made survey questionnaires. The research procedural flow will identify the profile of the

22
respondents as to age and sex, and socioeconomic status; Afterwards, secondary data will be

gathered through data validation, consolidation, analysis, and interpretation.

The Study Population and Sampling Procedure

           The targeted population will be composed of the entire students enrolled in the Bachelor

of Science in Psychology program of Central Philippine University who were engaged in online

classes for the school year 2021-2022.

The overall population is 400 (rough estimate) who are enrolled in online classes. The

sample size will be derived by considering the standard normal deviation set at 95% confidence

level (1.96) and confidence interval, which is 50% (0.05). Further, the required number of

respondents will be determined using Slovin’s formula (Sevilla et. Al., 1960:182),              

Where:

n= the number of required respondents

N= total number of subjects in the population

e= the margin of error, which is set at 0.05, a value that is recommended in a social science

research

The sample population that will be obtained (200, rough estimate) will be subjected to

simple random sampling which is defined as a probability sampling method in which the sample

is chosen in such a way that every set of individuals has an equal chance to be selected as a

sample (McCombes, 2021). This sampling method will then utilize the table of random numbers.

23
Data Collection

List of the population and necessary information of the students who were enrolled this

school year 2021-2022 of the first semester will be asked from the  Registrar Office and will be

lobbied at the Social Sciences Department under the College of Arts and Sciences. Sample size

will be taken after knowing the overall population of BS Psychology and respondents will be

randomly picked up. Then, the formal permission to conduct this study will be secured through a

letter from the Department. Before the test administration, the first page of the forms is brief

instructions and orientation on the purpose of the survey and the content of the instrument.

Informed consent attached as part of the instrument with withdrawal slip if they decided not to

participate in the said testing. In the Google forms, the three-part survey questionnaire will be

attached. In addition, the respondents will give enough time to answer the instrument. Clearly

and carefully, instructed not to leave any item unanswered. Questions for clarification will be

catering after the testing. Upon the completion of the questionnaires, the researcher will

individually check the answered questionnaires for some possible missing information. The data

will be coded, tabulated, computer-processed, analyzed, and interpreted by the research design

and statistical tools adopted. After the researcher’s questionnaire has been checked, improved,

and revised, the data will be collected and studied.

Instrumentation

The data will be gathered using the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (Shapiro G. et al., 2017) and

the Knowledge and Attitude Toward Vaccination Scale (Cvjetkovic SJ., Jeremic VLj., &

Tiosavljevic DV, 2017) but will be modified to suit the present context on COVID-19 pandemic.

Informed consent will be added on the first page of the instrument as well as the withdrawal slip.

24
 The survey questionnaire will consist of three parts, namely:

Part I – deals with the demographic profile of the respondents, which includes

information about the BS psychology student’s age, sex, and socioeconomic status. 

Part II –  For the vaccination knowledge, a standardized test named  Knowledge and

Attitude Toward Vaccination Scale (Cvjetkovic SJ., Jeremic VLj., & Tiosavljevic DV, 2017)

will be utilized. This scale consists of 23 statements with two dimensions, vaccination

knowledge (8 statements) with a 5-point Likert scale and attitude towards vaccination with a 3-

point Likert scale (15 statements). In this study, the researchers will adapt the said test and

modify it to be consistent with the present situation. The modified questionnaire now called

“Vaccination Knowledge Scale” consists of 18 statements (more of the attitude toward

vaccination) using a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as “strongly disagree” and 5 as “strongly agree”

with categories such as high vaccination knowledge, moderate vaccination knowledge, and low

vaccination knowledge. To score, the summation of the response will yield a mean ranging from

1.0-5.0. 

For the psychometric soundness of the test, content validity was performed and

Cronbach's alpha of 0.90 was achieved indicating a high internal consistency. Additionally,

structural validity factor analysis was applicable based on both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure

value (KMO = 0.89) and Bartlett's test of sphericity result (χ2 = 1684.210, df = 91, p < 0.01). An

exploratory factor analysis using principal components factoring with varimax rotation was

carried out and resulted in a three-factor solution that accounted for 66% of the item variance

(eigenvalues = 46.11, 12.22, and 7.85). 

25
Table 1

Frequency of Vaccination Knowledge in Codes

Frequency of Vaccination Knowledge Code

Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Neither Agree/Disagree 3

Agree 4

Strongly Agree 5

Table 2

The Mean Range and Categories

Mean Range Catergories

1.00 – 2.32 High Vaccination Knowledge

2.33 – 3.65 Moderate Vaccination Knowledge

4.66 – 5.00 Low Vaccination Knowledge

26
 Part III – For the vaccination hesitancy, a standardized test named Vaccine Hesitancy

Scale (Shapiro G. et al., 2017) will be utilized. In identifying vaccine hesitancy, The SAGE

Working Group (2015)  developed a compendium of survey questions that were derived from

previously validated questionnaires. Shapiro and his colleagues (2017) focused on the 10-Likert

Scale Question of the SAGE Working Group (2015) and conducted a study to validate its

psychometric soundness. Based on the research, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to

identify latent construct underlying responses based on the said items using a 5-point Likert scale

with dimensions such as lack confidence and risks were utilized. Item 10 was removed, resulting

in a nine (9) item vaccine hesitancy scale was divided into two sub-scales consisting of seven

and two items.  For clarity, in the validation study of Shapiro G. and colleagues, for the total

sample (N = 3779) ‘lack of confidence,’ Cronbach’s alpha was 0.92 and inter-item correlations

ranged between 0.52 and 0.79. For the total sample (N = 3779) ‘risks’, Cronbach’s alpha was

0.64 and the inter-item correlation was 0.73. In this study, the 9-item Likert Scale Questions

utilized a 5-point rating scale with 1 as “strongly disagree” and 5 as “strongly agree” with

categories such as high vaccination hesitancy, moderate vaccination hesitancy, and low

vaccination hesitancy; item 8 and 9 will be scored reversely. To score, the summation of the

response will yield a mean ranging from 1.0-5.0. 

27
Table 1

Frequency of Vaccine Hesitancy in Codes

Frequency of Vaccine Hesitancy Code

Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2

Neither Agree/Disagree 3

Agree 4

Strongly Agree 5

Table 2

The Mean Range and Categories

Mean Range Catergories

1.00 – 2.32 High Vaccine Hesitancy

2.33 – 3.65 Moderate Vaccine Hesitancy

3.66 – 5.00 Low Vaccine Hesitancy

 In addition, the statements in the instrument will be organized in a random order to

ameliorate any order effect and it will undergo a validation process before it will be laid in the

28
study with a reason that the instrument based the questions on the above-mentioned tests. Then,

it will be subjected to reliability analysis.

Pilot testing will be utilized to the determined sample of BS Psychology students of

Central Philippine University (CPU) enrolled in the school year 2021 - 2022, this will give the

researchers insight into the actual conducting of the study and enable revisions and corrections,

as well as to have a localized tool-specific in studying vaccination knowledge and vaccine

hesitancy among college students. 

Data Analysis

The data that the researchers will obtain will be processed and analyzed using the

software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics such as

frequency distribution, the percentage for the demographic profile of the respondents; mean and

standard deviation will be employed to analyze the data in determining the levels of vaccination

knowledge and vaccine hesitancy among BS Psychology students of Central Philippine

University when taken as a whole and when grouped according to age, sex and, socioeconomic

status. Also, inferential statistics such as t-test for independent groups will be used to determine

the significant difference between vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy to sex; Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA) will be used to determine the significant difference between vaccination

knowledge and vaccine hesitancy to age and socioeconomic status. And the Pearson’s r which

measures the linear relationship between two interval/ratio level variables will be used to explore

the relationship between vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy.

Ethical Considerations

29
 These are the ethical guidelines that will be put into practice during the conduct of the

study:

A letter of permission will be given to the Registrar's Office and will be lobbied to the Social

Sciences Department under the College of Arts and Sciences before the survey will be

conducted. An informed consent attached to the questionnaire will be made to ensure that

respondents willingly joined this study and are not forced to do so. In case that item will trigger

the respondents and will cause them harm earlier or sooner, withdrawal slip will be attached to

the questionnaire. The researchers also respect the privacy and confidentiality of each respondent

and therefore giving out their names or not is an option given in the questionnaires. Data

obtained will be held confidential adhering to ethical standards. So, all the data of the

respondents will be secured properly and will be disposed of after the study.

30
 REFERENCES

Amit Aharon, A., Nehama, H., Rishpon, S., & Baron-Epel, O. (2018). A path analysis model

suggesting the association between health locus of control and compliance with

childhood vaccinations. Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 14(7), 1618–1625.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645515.2018.1471305

Barrows, K. (2020, March 3). The Young Professional Workforce. Department for Professional

Employees, AFL-CIO. https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/the-young-professional-

workforce

Bertoncello, C. et al., (2020). Socioeconomic Determinants in Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccine

Refusal in Italy.Vaccines, 8(2), 276.  https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8020276

Domek, G. et al. (2018). Measuring vaccine hesitancy: Field testing the WHO SAGE working

group on vaccine hesitancy survey tool in Guatemala. ScienceDirect.com | Science,

health and medical journals, full text articles and books.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18310156

Dubé, E., Laberge, C., Guay, M., Bramadat, P., Roy, R., & Bettinger, J. A. (2013). Vaccine

hesitancy. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 9(8), 1763–1773.

https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657

Dube, E et al., (2013). Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3906279/

31
Dubé, E., Laberge, C., Guay, M., Bramadat, P., Roy, R., & Bettinger, J. A. (2013). Vaccine

hesitancy. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 9(8), 1763–1773.

https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657

Freeman, D et al., (2020). Cambridge University Press.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/covid19-

vaccine-hesitancy-in-the-uk-the-oxford-coronavirus-explanations-attitudes-and-

narratives-survey-oceans-ii/C30FDB5C3D87123F28E351FDAAD5351A

Gozalo M. et al., (2021). COVID-19 Philippines. COVID-19 Tracker Philippines.

https://covid19stats.ph/stats/by-demographics

Joelson, Richard B. (2017). Locus of control. Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moments-matter/201708/locus-control

Kumar, D., Chandra, R., Mathur, M. et al. (2016).Vaccine hesitancy: understanding better to

address better. Isr J Health Policy Res 5, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0062-y

Lund Research Ltd. (2012). Convenience sampling. The Online Research Guide for your

Dissertation and Thesis | Lærd Dissertation. https://dissertation.laerd.com/convenience-

sampling.php

MacDonald N. et al., (2015). Vaccine hesitancy: Definition, scope and determinants.

ScienceDirect.com | Science, health and medical journals, full text articles and books.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X15005009

32
Paez, A. (2020). Using Google Community Mobility Reports to investigate the incidence of

COVID-19 in the United States. Findings. Published.

https://doi.org/10.32866/001c.12976

Quirk, C. (2019). Vaccines: ‘One of the Greatest Public Health Achievements’.

https://elm.umaryland.edu/elm-stories/Elm-Stories-Content/Vaccines-One-of-the-

Greatest-Public-Health-Achievements.php

Statistics and Research (2021). Coronavirus (Covid-19) Vaccinations.

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Tavolacci, Marie Pierre ; Dechelotte, Pierre ; Ladner, Joel. (2021). COVID-19 Vaccine

Acceptance, Hesitancy, and Resistancy among University Students in France.

Https://Www.Proquest.Com/.

https://www.proquest.com/docview/2544940170/3CE0F69E43A5456DPQ/1?

accountid=35994

World Health Organization (WHO) (2021). Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard.

https://covid19.who.int/.Accessed%20January%202021

33
APPENDICES

34
 APPENDIX A

Informed Consent Form

You are invited to participate in the research study entitled “VACCINATION KNOWLEDGE

AND VACCINE HESITANCY AMONG COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES STUDENTS OF

CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY” led by Mitch Pauleen Demonteverde, Angelo Labrador,

Hernalyn Macado, Zean Ellen Pornel, and Valerie Sumbe, 3 year BS Psychology students at the
rd

Central Philippines University.

Some questions in the interview guide might prompt discomfort, as it will allow you to assess

how you feel about certain categories of vaccine knowledge and vaccine hesitancy. Participating

would help the researchers in understanding the subject. The study’s projected outcome is a

thesis that will be submitted to the Department of Psychology of Central Philippine University.

Any information that is acquired in connection with this research and can be identified with you

will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Your identity will be

kept with strict confidentiality.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mitch Pauleen Demonteverde, with

the mobile phone number (no. 09682390512). If you agree to participate in this research study,

please sign on to the space provided. Thank you!

Date: _______________________

35
Name: ______________________

Signature: ___________________

APPENDIX B

3 Part Survey Questionnaire

Name: (Optional)

Age:

Sex:

Family Monthly Income (Estimate):

Instruction: Please check how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement

1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 =

Strongly Agree

VACCINATION KNOWLEDGE 1 2 3 4 5

1. Media allegations about the connection between vaccines with chronic          

diseases, such as autism and multiple sclerosis, have led me to doubt

vaccination as a safe method.

2. It is important to keep vaccination coverage of the population to avoid          

the emergence of new epidemics.

36
3. Educating parents about vaccines is an important way to connect          

vaccination coverage to the population.

4. The doctor has an important role in educating parents about the          

importance of vaccination.

5. It is no longer necessary to vaccinate people.          

6. It is safer to be vaccinated against infectious diseases.          

7. Vaccines contain substances that have been proven harmful to one's          

health.

8. The diseases have already begun to disappear before importing the          

mandatory vaccinations, for better hygiene and sanitation.

9. The Philippines has no right to impose the obligation of vaccination on          

people

10. There is not enough evidence that immunization prevents the          

occurrence of infectious diseases.

11. Pharmaceutical companies promote vaccination of people for profit,          

although they are aware of the fact that it is harmful.

12. I would vaccinate people in a prescribed program of immunization.          

14. I would advise the people to vaccinate their family in a prescribed          

37
program of immunization.

15. If vaccines against COVID-19 were available, I would be vaccinated.          

16. The modern scientific evidence confirms the connection of vaccines          

with chronic illnesses such as autism, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis.

17. Vaccines are 100% efficient.          

18. In the Philippines, there is a legal obligation for the vaccination of          

people.

19. Giving multiple vaccines at the same time can overload the immune          

system.

VACCINE HESITANCY 1 2 3 4 5

1. Vaccines are important for my health.          

2. Vaccines are effective.          

3. Getting vaccines is a good way to protect me from disease.          

4. Having myself vaccinated is important for the health of others in my          

community.

5. All vaccines offered by the government program in my community are          

beneficial.

38
 6. The information I receive about vaccines from the vaccine program is          

reliable and trustworthy.

7. Generally, I do what my doctor or health care provider recommends          

about vaccines for myself.

8. New vaccines carry more risks than older vaccines.          

9. I am concerned about the serious adverse effects of vaccines.          

  

Scoring

To score, the summation of the response will yield a mean ranging from 1.0-5.0. 

APPENDIX C

Vaccine Hesitancy Scale

Shapiro G. et al. (2017)

Instruction: Please check how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement

1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 =

Strongly Agree

39
   1 2 3 4 5

1. Childhood vaccines are important for my health.          

2. Childhood vaccines are effective.          

3. Getting vaccines is a good way to protect my child/children from          

disease.

4. Having my child vaccinated is important for the health of others in my          

community.

5. All childhood vaccines offered by the government program in my          

community are beneficial.

6. The information I receive about vaccines from the vaccine program is          

reliable and trustworthy.

7. Generally, I do what my doctor or health care provider recommends          

about vaccines for my child/children.

8. New vaccines carry more risks than older vaccines.          

9. I am concerned about the serious adverse effects of vaccines.          

APPENDIX D

Knowledge and Attitude Towards Vaccination Scale

Cvjetkovic SJ., Jeremic VLj., & Tiosavljevic DV. (2017)

40
  Instruction: Please check how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement 

1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 =

Strongly Agree

ATTITUDE TOWARDS VACCINATION 1 2 3 4 5

1. Media allegations about the connection between vaccines with chronic          

diseases, such as autism and multiple sclerosis, have led me to doubt
vaccination as a safe method.

2. It is important to keep vaccination coverage of the population to avoid          

the emergence of new epidemics.

3. Educating parents about vaccines is an important way to connect          

vaccination coverage to the population.

4. The doctor has an important role in educating parents about the          

importance of vaccination.

5. It is no longer necessary to vaccinate children because all of these          

diseases are very rare today.

6. It is safer than the infectious disease to be vaccinated against it.          

7. Vaccines contain substances that have been proven harmful to          

children's health.

8. The diseases have already begun to disappear before importing the          

mandatory vaccinations, for better hygiene and sanitation.

9. The state has no right to impose the obligation of vaccination of          

children, but parents should be the ones who bring the decision.

41
 10. There is not enough evidence that immunization prevents the          
occurrence of infectious diseases.

11. Pharmaceutical companies promote vaccination of children for profit,          

although they are aware of the fact that it is harmful.

12. I would vaccinate their child in a prescribed program of          

immunization.

14. I would advise the patient to vaccinate their child in a prescribed          

program of immunization.

15. If vaccines against HIV and hepatitis C were available, I would be          

vaccinated.

1 = Correct, 2 = Incorrect, 3 = Don’t Know 

VACCINE KNOWLEDGE 1 2 3

1. The modern scientific evidence confirms the connection of vaccines with      

chronic illnesses such as autism, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis.

2. Vaccines are 100% efficient.      

3. In Serbia there is a legal obligation for vaccination of children.      

4. Giving multiple vaccines at the same time can overload the immune system.      

5. Mumps virus infection can have serious complications such as hearing loss      
and meningitis.

42
 6. Thanks to the systematic implementation of vaccination, poliomyelitis (polio)      
and diphtheria are virtually cut off from the European continent.

7. Reduced rates of vaccination in certain regions of Europe and the US caused      

a significant increase in the incidence of measles and whooping cough in these
regions.

8. A child with an ear infection under antibiotic therapy should not be      

administered the vaccine.

APPENDIX E

 Central Philippine University

Research Thesis Mentor/Mentee Agreement

(Semester: ___2nd___ S.Y.__2020 - 2021__)

Psychology Program

Social Science Department

Approved by ______Pauline Marie D. Wong______ on __April 2021__

General Information: Please fill in the following important details

43
Group Number and Stub code: Thesis 1 Group 7 (Stub code: _3207)

List of Group Members:

Mitch Pauleen B. Demonteverde

Angelo C. Labrador

Hernalyn D. Macado

Zean Ellen P. Pornel

Valerie B. Sumbe

Representative Student Email Address: mitchpauleen.demonteverde-01@cpu.edu.ph

Mentor Name: Prince Joash L. Dacles

Mentor Department: Social Sciences

Mentor Email Address: princejoashdacles@gmail.com

Thesis Title: Vaccination Knowledge and Vaccine Hesitancy Among BS Psychology Students
of Central Philippine University.

Brief Description of the Thesis Proposal (3-5 sentences):

As the COVID-19 pandemic prevails to this day, people need to protect themselves

against the virus, and this is where vaccination takes its crucial part. Sadly, the public’s

confidence towards vaccination is wavering. And the researchers wanted to contribute to the

knowledge and awareness of vaccines, pursuing to determine why some people are deciding to

delay or refuse vaccination especially in these trying times. The main goal of this study is to

understand vaccine hesitancy on a psychological level to spread knowledge and awareness and to

develop measures to boost vaccine acceptance rates. 

Annotated Bibliography (5 – 8 References):

44
 Bertoncello, C. et al., (2020). Socioeconomic Determinants in Vaccine Hesitancy and
Vaccine Refusal in Italy.Vaccines, 8(2), 276.  https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8020276

Kumar, D., Chandra, R., Mathur, M. et al. (2016).Vaccine hesitancy: understanding

better to address better. Isr J Health Policy Res 5, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0062-y

Dubé, E. et al., (2013). Vaccine hesitancy: an overview. Hum Vaccin Immunother. doi:
10.4161/hv.24657

Joelson, Richard B. (2017). Locus of control. Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moments-matter/201708/locus-control

Domek, G. et al. (2018). Measuring vaccine hesitancy: Field testing the WHO SAGE
working group on vaccine hesitancy survey tool in Guatemala. ScienceDirect.com | Science,
health and medical journals, full text articles and books.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18310156

  Responsibilities of Research Students

i.                     Know the University’s policy and procedures on academic honesty and adhere
to the University Student Honor Code: “I will be academically honest in all of my
academic work and will not tolerate academic dishonesty of others.”.

ii.                   Assume a proactive nature in pursuing your goals for your undergraduate
education. The faculty and staff of the Department are strongly invested in the
success of the program and are willing to help you fulfill your goals. But, keep in
mind that this is YOUR graduate degree. The faculty and staff are here to help YOU
help YOURSELF.

iii.                 Meet all deadlines and review critiques imposed by the Program, the Mentor,
and Panel Members. Failure to do so will not be the mentor and advisor's
responsibility. Delays will be the students’ accountability.

iv.                 Complete and file all necessary forms with the adviser and mentor on time.
Forms are given in the Research Course subject by the adviser.

45
 v.                   Maintain and follow a practical timetable in the writing of one’s research paper.
Students are to inform the mentor with this time flow. The following are the
schedules for meetings via (platform)________________ every (time and says of
meeting) ___________________

vi.                 Students are responsible for the plagiarism check of their research papers. A
plagiarism scan will be done after the final defense. Payment of Php 800 shall be
made via Cashier/Finance Office.

vii.                After the Proposal Defense, studies will be submitted for evaluation to be
reviewed by the Ethics Committee. You are to prepare the needed fees and documents
as you pass said proposed study to the committee.

viii.              Fees for mentor and panel members should be paid before the Defense Proposal
and Final Defense. The Following are the fees to be paid:

Professional involved Price

Mentor (Effective for 1 Php 4,000: Php 2,000 per semester after
school year) Defense

3 Panel Members Php 1000 per panelist: Php 500 per

semester after Defense

ix.                  In the case of conflict among members and or with the mentor will arise, the
both parties will (provide a written plan of agreed
resolution):___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

x.                   Maintain cooperation and collaboration with one another as members and with
the mentor. If relationships are deemed unproductive and unhealthy then both parties
can end the contract given negotiations and all possible solutions were explored.

46
Responsibilities of Faculty Members or Staff Assigned as the Mentor:

i.                     Welcome undergraduate Research students for the review of the contract and
creation of schedules to effectively write the Research proposal and final paper before
and after the Defense.

ii.                   Be in contact with the student researchers. You will meet them (time)
______________ every (date)_________ on (platform)______________

iii.                 Provide the best possible environment for research training for students. While
mentors are given the duty to critique and assess their students, they are expected to
acquire a substantial degree of independence in their daily research work as well as
their oral and written presentations.

iv.                 Be fiscally responsible in terms of not only meeting them safely but also
reviewing their paper for any comments or critiques without causing major delays on
their end for the graduate students for which they are the major professor.

v.                   Serve on Graduate Advisory Committees as often as is reasonable. Service

need not be restricted to the committees of students whose research is within a faculty
member’s area of expertise. An outside point-of-view can be valuable, and all
students should be able to effectively present their work to non-experts.

vi.                 Encourage students to attend all Departmental Seminars and other Departmental
academic functions. Become a role model for attendance at seminars, journal clubs,
retreats, and, importantly, thesis defenses. (Follow up if mentors need to attend
defenses)

vii.                Assist in providing a mechanism for the student to fulfill and follow schedules,
deadlines of revisions (e.g., time tables) to better monitor and report their progress.

viii.              Provide both scientific and professional mentoring (as co-authors of the paper)
as students move through their qualifying exams and develop their research papers.
47
 Encourage attendance at conferences and seek other opportunities for students to
explore the best options for their papers.

ix.                Maintain cooperation and collaboration with the group of student-researchers. If

relationships are deemed unproductive and unhealthy then both parties can end the
contract given negotiations and all possible solutions were explored.

Student: By signing this agreement, you are agreeing to perform your thesis work with the
following chosen mentors for Research I and II and with the following duties listed and to adhere
to the guidelines of the Psychology Program.

You are also aware that this contract is only effective for 1 (one) school year, in the case you are
not able to complete your Research Study within the allotted time frame, you are responsible for
initiating a re-negotiation of the contract. Inability to complete one’s undergraduate paper will
prevent you from taking the Comprehension Examination and delay the signing of your
clearance for Graduation as this is a Major Requirement.

Major Professor: By signing this agreement, you are agreeing to mentor these undergraduate
students listed below and to adhere to the guidelines of the Psychology Program Mentor-Mentee
contract. In addition, you are stating that you have the available resources to support the student
for the foreseeable future. You will receive monetary compensation of Php 4,000.  You will be
recognized as a co-author of the said research study given the contract has not ended before the
Research had fully completed

Students Names (print) and Signature  

Mitch Pauleen Demonteverde  

Angelo Labrador Date: 

Hernalyn Macado Mentor’s Name (print) and Signature

Zean Ellen Pornel Prince Joash Dacles

Valerie Sumbe Research 1 Adviser Signature

48
 Pauline Marie D. Wong Department Head Signature

Date: Date

APPENDIX F

Dear ma’am/sir,  

Greetings and Good day!

We are 3 Year Students of the Bachelor of Science in Psychology- Research Group 7.

rd

We sincerely ask for your assistance for validation of questionnaires in our thesis entitled,

"VACCINATION KNOWLEDGE AND VACCINE HESITANCY AMONG COLLEGE OF ARTS

AND SCIENCES STUDENTS OF CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY"

 Its purpose is to determine the vaccination knowledge and vaccine hesitancy among

college students in online learning of the aforementioned school. 

Thank you for taking the time in reading our email, and we are hoping for your positive

response. If you have any queries/ concerns, you may contact us via email

(mitchpauleen.demonteverde-01@cpu.edu.ph) and we will gladly entertain.

Thank you for your kind consideration, stay safe! 

Respectfully,
(Leader) Mitch Pauleen Demonteverde
Angelo Labrador
Hernalyn Macado
Zean Ellen Pornel
Valerie Sumbe
Researchers

49
Pauline Marie D. Wong
       Subject Adviser

50