Summary of the study
This study was mainly focused on investigating what pregnant women in regional Australia thought were the harms and advantages of COVID-19 vaccines. Jones et al. (2023) aimed to investigate two key aspects: first, how do women, and pregnant women, perceive the dangers of COVID-19 and those linked to being administered an AstraZeneca vaccine? Second, what are the new societal notions, shared beliefs, and opinions concerning women and vaccinations? In response to these questions, Jones et al. (2023) employed a longitudinal design involving quantitative and qualitative approaches. Two data collection methods were conducted: first, among the first, during the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination (June-August 2021) and second, six months later (January-February 2022). The participants interacted using an online survey comprising risk and benefits scales and word association tasks. Adults in regional Mid North and North Western New South Wales, Australia, were surveyed. The first wave of data collection included 304 participants (predominantly women, including expectant mothers and those expecting). In the second wave, there were twenty female respondents. Perceived risks towards COVID-19 and AstraZeneca vaccination were assessed, and semantic networks or associations related to vaccination during pregnancy and women were elicited. This information was later subjected to MDS and HCA.
The study made some notable revelations regarding how pregnant women viewed COVID-19 vaccination and how they socially perceived it. Firstly, women who were thinking of conception and those who were pregnant perceived themselves in greater danger when compared with those of normal health, as well as the AstraZeneca vaccine. It should be noted that scale scores revealed a greater perceived risk for pregnant women as compared to other groups – men, non-pregnant women, and older adults, except for the older adults’ risk for the virus. The word-association tasks revealed the rise of mainly negative associative fields concerning vaccines against COVID-19. Many times, terms like ‘dangerous,’ ‘fear,’ and ‘unknown’ went together, showing overall fear and ambiguity concerning the vaccine’s association with pregnancy. In the second wave, however, an apparent change in perceptions occurred. The notion of risk continued but with a mix of more favorable connotations, such as safety and necessity, showing a dynamic shift in how society understood this vaccine over time.
The rationale behind the Sociocultural Approach
Jones et al. (2023) applied a sociocultural approach, particularly the social representations theory, as its research framework. Exploring the social information and notions related to COVID-19 vaccination in the pregnancy background might reveal the underlying relationship between perception of risk, societal views, and cultural behaviors influencing decision-making. The sociocultural approach helped the researchers in capturing the social narratives, group understanding, and individual decision-making processes of the community.
Contribution of Sociocultural Approach to the Literature
A sociocultural perspective, especially SRT, presents a distinct perspective, especially on complex issues like attitudes toward vaccines in pregnant women. Explaining the emergence and development of understanding in groups and individuals in terms of knowledge as being embedded in the society in which it is created and exists. In this study on women, pregnancy, and COVID-19, the authors argue that people’s orientation and engagement with others in the world determine their interactions with social representations such as values, ideas, and practices (Jones et al., 2023). SRT is a top-level approach that considers how, through cultural beliefs and social practices, a particular group of people maintains and shares their culture.
Evaluation of the Study’s Strengths
One strength of this study is its methodological design. Two waves of data collection using a longitudinal approach would enable observation of change in perceptions in the rapidly evolving context of the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination rollout. This design is appropriate for the use of SRT because it takes into account the dynamic and changing nature of social representations. Additionally, integrating quantitative (risk and benefit scales) and qualitative (word association tasks) methods makes the data more colorful; besides statistical insights, it sheds new light on participants’ perceptions and thinking. The mixed-method approach reinforces the findings’ validity and thoroughly examines the complex problem by virtue of its nature.
The analytic approaches used in the study must support the theoretical and methodological framework within it. The use of Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) in analyzing word association data effectively uncovers the underlying structure of social representations. Such methods are especially useful in discerning patterns and themes in complicated qualitative data as they make it possible to see clearly how concepts and notions coexist in participants’ minds. The analytical approach complements the theoretical emphasis on SRT and transforms the theoretical idea of social representations into empiric evidence. Also, thematic qualitative elaborations add more depth to why the words or concepts are salient in the context of COVID-19 vaccinations and pregnancy.
The study’s discussion section effectively integrates the findings into the wider body of literature, providing thought-provoking insights and conclusions. The empirical findings connect the social representations to SRT’s theory and establish that the observed changes concur with what SRT postulates. This discussion admits that social representations are not fixed and reveals how the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic influences people’s perspectives and attitudes (Jones et al., 2023). It also carefully explores the implications of these findings for health messaging and vaccination strategies in relation to culture and content. This part contributes well to the comprehension of vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in order to place the study among other studies in the field of health behavior and vaccine acceptance.
Evaluation of the Study’s Weaknesses
Though SRT provides an all-inclusive framework for the study, it has an inherent limitation as a theoretical framework. SRT is quite robust when it comes to looking at the collective aspects of knowledge creation. However, sometimes, it might fail to focus on the subtleties of individual psychological processes engaged in decision-making. On the other hand, the emphasis on social and cultural factors can be seen to be overshadowing the contribution of personal experiences, individual choice, and cognitive prejudices toward determining health behaviors. Moreover, the all-encompassing nature of the theory may make it difficult to identify precise mechanisms through which social knowledge directly influences personal behavior, particularly in a diverse and intricate domain such as health problem-solving.
However, the methodological approach is innovative but has certain limitations. Its time span is brief, and its two-wave data collection procedure limits the longitudinal aspect of the study. Longitudinal studies tend to enjoy several data points, and longitudinal studies for a lengthy period will provide a more detailed picture of how social representations evolve during a rapidly changing pandemic, as per Friedler (2020). Converting qualitative responses into quantifiable data will result in shallow data that is not informative but might miss nuances in the way one expresses one’s own thoughts and beliefs. Moreover, reliance on the word association tasks may constrain understanding the reasonableness of the participants’ attitude or cognization process as these tasks capture only the immediate, superficial thoughts.
The discussion section is insightful but has some limitations. Although it successfully links the findings to the wider literature and public health implications, the study could have provided a more critical evaluation of its own limitations and the complexity of using SRT in health behavior research. The talk could further venture into other reasons why vaccines may not be necessary in some settings, such as personality factors and economic or social conditions, amongst others. Moreover, even though the research provides practical implications for public health strategies, it needs to discuss the challenges and viability of adopting this advice in different healthcare environments.
Potential Future Developments in Sociocultural Work
An approach to examining women’s pregnancy and COVID-19 vaccination studies through sociocultural lenses opens up future prospects. Expanding the geographical scope, for example, could facilitate a better view of how cultural and socio-demographic norms in diverse areas or countries affect vaccination choice decisions. A comparison of urban and rural settings or various countries with differing healthcare systems and cultures would be useful in this regard for more robustly revealing the effect of sociocultural influences on health behavior. Third, longitudinal designs over a longer time should be incorporated in future studies. This approach would be more accurate in capturing the development of social representations, particularly in the case of a continuous and dynamic scenario such as a pandemic. Long-term research may reveal changes in public perception of the development of new vaccines, new public health policies, or newly available information regarding the vaccine’s efficacy and safety, as per Walsh and Foster (2020). The second line of inquiry focuses on a finer-grained understanding of individual-level factors within the sociocultural framework. This may focus on understanding how personal experiences, cognitive biases, and individual differences (such as educational level, SES, or health literacy) may interconnect with societal influences in affecting vaccination attitudes.
A multidisciplinary approach is needed when advancing sociocultural work in the context of health behavior, especially regarding vaccination. If the sociocultural influences were taken into consideration more seriously, collaboration with anthropology, public health, and even psychologists could help in creating more elaborate methodologies. For example, involving ethnographic approaches will give deeper, qualitative descriptions of how various communities view and talk about vaccines. Given that online activities can significantly influence social representations and public discourses, the inclusion of digital ethnography in this study seems critical. Content analysis of social media and online discussions might help identify how digital communities shape vaccination perceptions and practices. Burgess and Mathias (2017) suggest that other areas of improvement can include utilizing participatory research methodologies and partnering with the community. This would not only help to understand community perceptions but also improve the usefulness and generalizability of the research output. Lastly, intervention development on sociocultural work in health behavior would be a step forward. Understanding the sociocultural influences as the first step to developing and testing interventions that are culturally sensitive and specific to communities will be a major breakthrough. This approach would close the gap between knowledge and practice and contribute to the development of more efficient public health strategies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the research article pertaining to women, pregnancy, and COVID-19 vaccination in regional Australia, based on Social Representations Theory, provides valuable insight into how sociocultural determinants can affect health choices. The study illustrates how pregnant women perceive risks and benefits related to COVID-19 vaccination. Such perception is not limited to individual considerations but results from collective beliefs and social narratives. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a longitudinal design gives rich insights into the changing nature of these perceptions. It also poses a limited sample size, geographic scope, and possibly a lack of qualitative depth; thus, this opens an area for future investigative improvement. In the future, there will be many opportunities for furthering sociocultural work in this industry. Research across settings and time could provide a broader perspective on sociocultural effects. Adding a single-factor level to the sociocultural could add holistic comprehension and make the vaccine decision-making processes more comprehensive. In addition, a multidisciplinary approach, digital ethnography, and participatory research methodologies would add to the comprehension of sociocultural dynamics in health behaviors. Lastly, developing and implementing a cultural approach in public health intervention informed by a sociocultural perspective can close the gap between theory and practice. Therefore, this study offers new data on health behavior and sets the foundation for future studies that will contribute to the development of sociocultural theories applicable to population health.
References
Burgess, R., & Mathias, K. (2017). Community Mental Health Competencies: A New Vision for Global Mental Health. The Palgrave Handbook of Sociocultural Perspectives on Global Mental Health, 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-39510-8_11
Davis, J. L., Love, T. P., & Fares, P. (2019). Collective Social Identity: Synthesizing Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory Using Digital Data. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(3), 019027251985102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519851025
Friedler, A. (2020). Sociocultural, behavioral and political factors shaping the COVID-19 pandemic: the need for a biocultural approach to understanding pandemics and (re)emerging pathogens. Global Public Health, 16(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1828982
Jones, S. W., Moloney, G., & Hutchinson, M. (2023). Juggling risks: A social representations investigation of women, pregnancy and COVID‐19 vaccination. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2744
Rolnik, D. L., Matheson, A., Liu, Y., Chu, S., McGannon, C., Mulcahy, B., Malhotra, A., Palmer, K. R., Hodges, R. J., & Mol, B. W. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on pregnancy duration and outcomes in Melbourne, Australia. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23743
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2019). Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology in Action, 1(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13788-5_9
Walsh, D., & Foster, J. (2020). A Contagious Other? Exploring the Public’s Appraisals of Contact with “Mental Illness.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062005
Wardah, S., Das, H., Halik, A., Iman, B., Tahir, M., Elihami, E., Jollong, A., & Kenre, I. (2020). Developing a Sociocultural Approach in Learning Management System through Moodle in the Era of the Covid-19. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. Www.ijicc.net, 13(7), 2020. http://repository.iainpare.ac.id/1945/1/13700o_Das_2020_E_R1.pdf
write