No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated that intolerance of uncertainty (IU) can hinder problem-solving and lead to avoidance of ambiguous situations. Furthermore, people tend to lack confidence in decisions made in ambiguous contexts. We wanted to investigate the impact of IU on intentions to get vaccinated, to vaccinate one’s children, and to recommend the vaccine in situations with varying degrees of perceived uncertainty. We first conducted a pretest to select six scenarios with different levels of perceived uncertainty. In the core study, 485 participants answered for each of the six scenarios whether they would get vaccinated, vaccinate their children (or imagine doing so, for individuals without children), and whether they would recommend the vaccine. They also completed the IUS-12 (Intolerance of Uncertainty scale) and the VAX (Vaccination Attitudes Examination). Results showed that perceived uncertainty did not influence our measures, but the IUS-12 and VAX predicted the difference in score between the most and least uncertain scenarios. An indirect effect of the IUS-12 on decision confidence through the VAX was found, but with no direct effect. We conclude that, even if future studies should refine these results, Public Policies should be more focused on factors such as IU and attitudes toward vaccination.

Mistrust in COVID-19 vaccines may hinder vaccination campaigns. We looked at cognitive determinants of vaccination intentions against COVID-19. We were interested in (i) the effects of stress and (ii) the effects of self-protection systems on attitudes and intentions to get COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted an online observational pilot study with 203 participants and used self-report questionnaires to assess perceived stress and vulnerability to disease, beliefs about a dangerous world, pandemic-related stressors, living conditions, attitudes and intentions toward the vaccines and trust in government management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The participants reporting high levels of trust in government and high levels of stress were more likely to have positive attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines, although these two effects are at least partially independent of each other. We discuss how to improve the communication around COVID-19 vaccine policies.

Rationale, Aims and Objectives Clinical reasoning is currently extensively studied to find out how to make proper diagnoses. Literature indicates that intolerance of uncertainty (IU) may have a strong negative impact on clinical reasoning. We summarize the various consequences of IU on clinical reasoning. Methods A scoping review was conducted using relevant keywords to scientific databases (i.e., Google Scholar, Medline, PsycINFO and PBSC) from September to November 2021. Complementary research included relevant articles and articles retrieved through Google Scholar's alert system. We included articles about healthcare professionals as defined by the French Public Health Code (As defined here: https://www.vie-publique.fr/fiches/37855-categories-de-professionnels-de-sante-code-se-la-sante-publique), and articles reporting on the impact of IU or uncertainty management on clinical reasoning. Results We retrieved 1853 articles, of which 8 were kept for final analysis considering our inclusion criteria. Two behaviour categories were affected by uncertainty intolerance: investigative and prescriptive behaviours. Regarding the investigation process, mismanagement of uncertainty appeared to lead to reasoning bias, potentially resulting in diagnostic errors. IU was associated with withholding information, more referrals to peers and less use of new medical interventions. Regarding prescription behaviours, IU among health professionals could lead to overprescribing unnecessary or dangerous tests. IU was also associated with more antibiotic prescriptions for conditions where antibiotics are to be used carefully. Conclusion Few studies have yet addressed the impact of IU on clinical reasoning. IU's influence is primarily observed on investigative and prescribing behaviours. More studies are needed to fully understand the impact of IU on clinical reasoning itself, and not only on practical consequences.