MONTESSORI DE SAN ILDEFONSO, INC.

Quijano St., San Juan, San Ildefonso, Bulacan

Contact No. 0931-044-2955 Email Add: mdsi.2002@gmail.comSchool ID No. 400920
Government Recognition Nos.: Preschool, E. 103, s.2002; Grade School, E. 091, s.2003; JHS, E.003, s.2004; SHSP, 810, s. 2016

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

OF MONTESSORI DE SAN ILDEFONSO YET TO BE VACCINATED ACADEMIC
YEAR 2021-2022

Submitted by:
Dela Cruz, Aliah Jashel D.C.
Lorenzo, Maria Greciel Margareth C.
Miranda, Althea Shamel F.
Reyes, Francheska Olivia S.
Ubaldo, Rhea Elaine B.
12- Fidelity
STEM

Submitted to:
Ms. Joselle B. Magbanua
Subject Teacher, Practical Research II

A research study submitted to the faculty of the Senior High School Department, Montessori de
San Ildefonso, Inc., San Juan, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, Philippines in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for Applied subject, Practical Research II,
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2021-2022.

OCTOBER 2021
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

On the wake of March 11 2020, COVID-19 was declared as a global

pandemic (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020). At that moment, the world

has stopped on its axis, as humanity was thrown into the abyss of endless

sufferings. Before the formulation of COVID-19 vaccines, humanity was living a

life of trepid fear for the said virus. To curb the spread of the virus with the

absence of any concrete cure or vaccine, the government implemented various

Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) further subdivided into two methods:

suppression and mitigation. Social distancing measures (suppression) that reduced

human-to-human contact to slow down the spread of the virus. This is an

intermittent plan and will continue with varying levels of security until the

availability of a vaccine. Mitigation involves the reallocation of majority of the

available healthcare services into treating COVID-19 patients and the

prioritization of higher-risk individuals such as those who are advanced in age and

with existing medical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, and heart disease

(WHO, 2021). These aforementioned methodologies are not solutions but they

reduced the numbers. However without a more concrete solution such as a cure or

vaccine, these solutions indirectly prolonged the pandemic and the restrictions

adopted to mitigate it (Ferguson et al., 2020).

Despite the government’s recognized and collective efforts the death

toll for COVID-19 still amounted to 4,690,186 deaths and the number of COVID-

19 positives is as high as 228,394,572 confirmed cases as of September 19, 2021

(WHO, 2021). Not only is there a casualty on the demographics but the world

economy is also bleeding. The tight policies and provisions as an attempt to

suppress the spread of the virus had an inverse relationship with the economy.
According to a global forecast of Global Economic Prospect on June 2020, the

state of economy amidst the pandemic of year 2020 is the deepest global recession

the world has ever experienced in decades. Statistics presents a 5.2% contraction

of the Global Domestic Product (GDP) of the world (World Bank, 2020). This left

a deep searing scar to the history of economics with millions of people affected.

The collapse of businesses globally led to the corrosion of human resource, with a

lot of people without jobs, debts and loans increased in leaps and bounds. The

healthcare systems of countries lagging behind in GDP have taken the most

pressure (World Bank, 2020), because of the lack of funding as result of the loss

of tourism, remittance from overseas workers, and taxes.

Humanity’s woes were not long-drawn-out as the very first clinical

trials for COVID-19 vaccines commenced on March 3rd, 2020 in the United

States (National Institute of Health, 2020). As of August 16, 2021 there are (8)

vaccines available in the Philippines: Pfizer-BioNTech, Oxford-AstraZeneca,

CoronaVac (Sinovac), Gamaleya Sputnik V, Johnson and Johnson’s Janssen,

Bharat BioTech, Moderna, and Sinopharm (Department of Health [DOH], 2021).

The interminable journey of the pandemic however does not end with the

development of vaccines.

The true strength of vaccination is in numbers. The concept of herd

immunity is when a substantial amount of the population gets vaccinated; it

breaks the chain for the transmission of the virus (WHO, 2021). However, the

percentage of people who need to be vaccinated in order to achieve herd immunity

varies with each disease. For example, to attain herd immunity against measles

95% of the population must be vaccinated, while the remaining 5% of the

population will be protected by the fact that measles will not spread among those

who are vaccinated. The percentage for vaccination to achieve herd immunity for

COVID-19 is as high as 75% to more than 80% (Fauci, 2021), which is not

currently plausible as a sizable chunk of the population is hesitant to COVID-19

vaccines. Data from a survey conducted by (Pulse Asia, 2021) from February 2,

2021 to March 3, 2021 reporting that 61% of adult Filipinos or 6 out of 10

Filipinos are hesitant to get vaccinated.

Vaccine hesitancy is defined as any action implored by a person to

delay the reception of the vaccine, self-reluctance or any promotion of reluctance

to others, and any verbal and non-verbal refusal to getting vaccinated despite the

availability of the vaccine (MacDonald et al., 2015). This hesitancy is not

something that has been decided by a person overnight, it is a delicate decision

making process that is influenced by several factors personal factors (e.g. self-

reported health status, knowledge about the vaccine, and etc.), COVID-19

vaccine-specific factors (e.g. efficiency of the vaccine and brand preference),

COVID-19 disease specific factors (e.g. self-perceived risk and anxiety due to

NPIs such as social distancing measures) influences of media and communication,

historical influences, and demographic and contextual factors (e.g. sex, age,

socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and location). Depending on the

grasp of these influences, a person may be willing or unwilling to get vaccinated.

This causal relationship is what the researchers aim to discover.

Personal factors account for the factors innate to people that influence

their compliance to the vaccine. One example is a person’s own understanding of

vaccines. According to (WHO, 2020) common misconceptions of people about

vaccines are as follow: 1). Diseases can disappear because of better hygiene and

sanitation that is why there is no need for vaccines. 2) Majority of those got the

disease have been vaccinated. 3). Vaccines have harmful side effects, can cause

illnesses and even death, and have underlying long term effects. 4). Getting

multiple vaccines for different diseases can overload the immune system. A

person’s heath perception is also a personal determinant of hesitancy (MacDonald

et al., 2015). People who have existing medical conditions prior to vaccination
such as diabetes, heart disease, and asthma would use their conditions to not get

vaccinated.

COVID-19 disease specific factors are the factors directly associated

with the virus itself. Negative emotions towards the pandemic such as the loss of

loved ones, loneliness due to social distancing measures (Taylor, 2019), fear of

getting infected by the virus, innate fear to vaccines, and frustration due to the loss

of income due to the pandemic (WHO, 2020) are some examples of COVID-19

disease specific factors. COVID-19 vaccine factors on the other hand, are factors

that center on the vaccine itself. This includes the perceived efficacy of the

vaccines and the COVID-19 vaccine preference of the population.

Influences of media and communications are the factors that realize

the role of mass media in influencing the perceptions of individuals about

vaccines. Extensive anti-vaccine content is frequently shared across social media

(Puri et al., 2020). Although preliminary, the existing evidence suggests that

exposure to such content may directly influence vaccination opinions and drive

downstream vaccine hesitancy. The study of (Basch et al., 2017) has demonstrated

that exposure to vaccine-critical websites and blogs negatively impacts intention

to vaccinate. They examined 87 videos from YouTube in 2017 using the

keywords “vaccine safety” and “vaccines and children”, 65% of the videos

centered around themes of anti-vaccine sentiment and 36.8% provided no factual

and scientific evidence. Similarly, (Ahmed et al., 2018) demonstrated that the use

of Twitter and Facebook as sources of health information and influenza

knowledge has a significant inverse association with influenza vaccine uptake,

which in also extends to COVID-19 knowledge and COVID-19 vaccine intake.

Social media is so a factor for promoting vaccine hesitancy as opposed to vaccine

compliance. Moreover, when evaluating the risks and benefits of vaccination in

general, the risks may be overestimated and may seem more immediate and
tangible as compared to the more abstract potential benefits of disease prevention

a fact that is exaggerated by the media for clicks.

Vaccine hesitancy has been identified as one of the top threats to

global and public health (WHO, 2019). The development of the vaccine did not

equate to herd immunity because vaccine hesitancy was not accounted for. This

inconsistency and lack of vaccine confidence prompted the researchers to conduct

a study that would determine the factors that led to people, specifically students,

to become hesitant and resistant to the vaccine in comparison to those who

identify as part of the demand or are willing to get vaccinated.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study aims to define all the factors that affect student’s

perception in the education institution of Montessori De San Ildefonso Academic

Year 2021-2022 and assess whether the students are part of the hesitancy or

demand for the COVID-19 vaccines as there is a need to identify and distinguish

those who are part of the vaccine acceptance to those part of the vaccine resistance

to move a step closer to the potential closure of the pandemic.

To be more specific, the study would be addressing the following

questions:

1. What is the socio-demographic profile and contextual factors of the

respondents based on the following:

1.1 Age

1.2 Sex

1.3 Grade Level

1.4 Monthly Family Income

1.5 Partial or Total Income Loss Due to the Pandemic

 2. To what extent do the respondents know about the role of vaccines

in general?

3. What percent of the respondents are hesitant to get vaccinated

compared to those who are willing to get vaccinated?

4. What are the factors that affect the perceptions of the respondents

leading them to become hesitant or willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine?

5. Which of the determinants have the most prominent effect to the

hesitancy/acceptance of the respondents to get vaccinated?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Hesitancy to get vaccinated would lead to the deliberate

prolongation of the pandemic. Consequently that would equate to the further

increase of the numbers of the human death toll because of COVID-19. With the

inverse relationship between the pandemic and the economy, the more the

pandemic gets extended; the continued recession of the economy. This research

study aims to find the factors that affect the perception of students on COVID-19

vaccine that determines their willingness to get vaccinated.

The research would benefit the students in a way that their

misconceptions about vaccines would be supplemented. Students make up 26.3

million of the population in the Philippines (Department of Education [DepEd],

2021) that it is imperative that students have vaccine confidence as they are the

future pillars of society. Students and youths as a whole are the engine room or

power house of the societies (Dev, 2017). With their overly ambitious nature and

desire to change the world, they influence society that is why it is vital to

inculcate the importance of immunization to students. For students who are the

age of 12 and above who are hesitant to get vaccinated, the results of this paper

may help them recognize the different factors that negatively affect their
perception in getting vaccinated and help correct the misconceptions that they

have to stimulate their vaccine compliance. For the students who are the age of 12

and above and who are a part of the demand to get vaccinated, this paper could

help them realize their role in campaigning for vaccine efficacy and herd

immunization. The results of this study could help them know the factors that

contribute to their vaccine acceptance and this in turn could help them convince

the people around them, who are lacking awareness to get vaccinated. For

students below the required age to have the vaccine, this research study will be

helpful for their learning of the importance of vaccination in fighting the virus so

that when they turn the right age for vaccination, they too would be part of the

demand.

The paper is also significant to The Institution of Health of San

Ildefonso. The data of this study could help the institution gain a relative insight

to what factors influence the perception of students of San Ildefonso towards the

COVID-19 vaccine. Factors affecting the hesitancy of students could serve as a

reference for future public educational campaigns for vaccines. These campaigns

could revolve around debunking misconceptions about the vaccines that student

have. The campaigns could also address the medical concerns and other negative

concerns of student. Factors affecting the demand of the vaccine could serve as

materials for promoting positive emotions such as hope and altruism, as part of

vaccine campaigns.

Lastly, the study would benefit the future researchers. This paper

could serve as a body of knowledge for researchers that would pursue research

endeavors of the same topic and field of study. The researchers have experienced

the scarcity for the review of related literature of this paper. The topic is

somewhat novel but the researchers realized that it is a subject of relative urgency

and hopes that the future researchers too, realize its importance to society. The
result of this study together with the knowledge gathered could be the reference

for further development of this topic.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This principal objective of the study, “Assessment of Covid-19

Hesitancy or Demand and Factors Affecting Student’s Perception in San

Ildefonso, Bulacan Academic Year 2021-2022”, is to unlock the determinants of

student vaccine hesitancy or vaccine acceptance. This covers the initial

perceptions of students and the factors that led to said perception of students on

the COVID-19 vaccines and the reasons why students are willing or not willing to

get vaccinated.

The study would only include the perceptions of 50 students enrolled

in the educational institution of Montessori De San Ildefonso, Bulacan in the

Academic Year 2021-2022, who are from the Junior and Senior High School

Department by the time of the distribution of the data gathering process that

would begin on November 22, 2021. This minimum age requirement was set by

the researchers in accordance to the age requirement for the vaccine, as only those

who are 12 years (For Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech only) and 18 years above

can get vaccinated (DOH, 2021). The study is by means not the reflection of the

perception of all students in the Philippines as a whole, but rather a small

reflection of what students might think in general.

The researchers would be imploring a casual-comparative

quantitative research design that aims to determine the cause-effect relationship of

variables and would collect the necessary data through a survey form. Because of

the pandemic, the researchers decided to use Google forms as a medium for

creating the survey. The survey is a self-made survey with specific COVID-19

related questions based on the Risk Communication and Community Engagement

(RCCE) Action Plan Guidance COVID-19 Preparedness and Response developed

by the World Health Organization (2020) and COVID-19 vaccine specific

questions based on COVID-19 Barometer: A Social Opinion (Laires et al., 2020).

The survey includes five parts: written consent (I), socio-demographic and

contextual factors (II), vaccine knowledge and misconception (III), vaccine

hesitancy or demand (IV), and the factors affecting student perception (V).

The answers from part (V) of the survey would be categorized using

an interpolation of the researcher’s own added categories: Influence of Media and

Communication and Historical Influences; adjusted to meet the demands of the

research, the Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy determinants: Contextual,

Personal, and COVID-19 Vaccine-Specific Factors (MacDonald et al., 2015) and

the determinant of the research, Factors Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine

Hesitancy: COVID-19 Disease Specific Factors (Soares et al., 2021).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Health Belief Model Theory

The Health Belief Model Theory developed by (Rosenstock, 1974)

serves as the main theoretical basis for this research. This theory proves that

people engage in levels of internal deliberation before committing a decision that

has medical implication, which in this case is vaccination. The model was created

as a way to explain why individuals choose to participate in health programs that

aim to prevent and detect diseases (Rosenstock, 1974) and was further developed

to also include the broader area of any health-related treatment. The model is

divided into six (6) constructs: 1). Perceived Susceptibility, 2). Perceived

Severity, 3). Perceived Benefits, 4). Perceived Barriers, 5). Cues to Action, and 6).

Self-efficacy. Perceived susceptibility is a person’s own health conscientious, in

which they believe that they can get the disease. In the case of the study, it is the

self-perceived risk of contracting the COVID-19 virus (Disease Specific Factor).

Perceived severity is a person’s belief about the seriousness of a condition, in the

study it is the fear of the complications caused by COVID-19 and even death

because of the virus (Disease Specific Factor). Perceived benefits are the potential

positive repercussions a person believes could be achieved once they push through

with the health action. Relating to the study, possible benefits that may influence

vaccine compliance is the belief that the pandemic would end soon once majority

of the people get vaccinated (Disease Specific Factor). This theory proves that

there are factors influencing the perceptions of individuals about a health action

(vaccination).

Anticipated Regret Theory

The anticipated regret theory of (Loomes & Sugden, 1982) details on

how individuals would anticipate the outcomes of their decisions and the possible

regret they might feel when the result of the decision becomes apparent. Because

of this, they incorporate the feeling of anticipated regret to their decision-making

process in hopes of trying to eliminate a future they would come to regret. This

theory is relevant to the decision making process of various health behaviors

including vaccination (Brewer et al., 2016). One of the aforementioned scenarios

that would taunt the mind of individuals is the possibility of contracting the virus

or their self-perceived risk towards the virus, which in turn would influence their

decisions positively. To escape the regret of contracting the virus they would

consider getting vaccinated.

Optimism Bias Theory

The Optimism Bias Theory was first demonstrated by (Weinstein,

1980) on his study wherein majority of college students believed their chances of

events such as divorce and having a drinking problem to be lower than that of

other students, and their chances of events such as owning their own home and

living past 80 years of age to be higher than that of other students. The theory

explains how some individuals seem to see the world in an optimistic light. For
individuals who have this bias, the probability of them experiencing something

good is high and the probability of experiencing something bad is low.

Consequently this also affects the attitude of people in getting vaccinated, they

overestimate that they have good health and underestimate the possibility of them

getting sick, which leads them to have hesitancy toward vaccines (Wolff, 2021).

This was further cemented in the study of (Park et al., 2021), “Optimistic bias and

preventive behavioral engagement in the context of COVID-19”, wherein the

results showed that optimism bias lowers the risk perception of individuals

towards COVID-19.

Agenda Setting Theory

The Agenda Setting Theory of (McCombs, 1968) serves as the

foundation for the category of determinants: Influence of Media and

Communication. In his theory, (McCombs, 1968) acknowledges the importance of

mass media in shaping public perception. According to the theory, the public eye

does not set what is important in the public’s agenda but rather mass media does.

This means that whatever issue the mass media covers, those are the issues that

become evident in the people’s eye. As the media coverage slowly loses its focus

on the issue, so does the interest of the public. This theory was referenced in a

recent study of (Medina et al., 2021), “Shaping public opinion through the lens of

agenda setting in rolling out COVID-19 vaccination program”. Statistics proves

how mass communication is able to grasp society to the very root, as 4.3 billion

people have access to the internet (Clement, 2021), 1.57 billion own television

(Stoll, 2018), 2.5 billion read printed newspaper regularly (News Brand Ireland,

2021), and 75% of the population have access to the radio (United Nations

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2021). The paper

emphasizes the role of mass media in promoting vaccine confidence to the people.

Using the Agenda Setting Theory the media has control over what topics sits on

the mind of the public when it comes to vaccines. Through this theory, the
government took control of mass media promoting vaccine efficacy and safety

through constant displays on the news and mindless repetition (Medina, 2021).

The researchers see the relevance of the paper to the study as one of

the determinants that the study would be using: Influence of Media and

Communication. Proving that the media does induce public perception, by

extension also proves that whatever image the media paints about vaccines

(positive or negative) is what gets reflected as relevant to the public’s eye.

Reactance Theory

The Reactance Theory of (Brehm, 1966) is formulated based on the

perceived freedom of a person or the belief that an individual has the liberty to

choose the option they want. When the freedom of a person is threatened, it could

spur a person to experience a reactance or the set of behaviors that aim to fight the

suppression the body has suffered. The idea is summarized as, the more you tell a

person “no” or to not do it, the more they want to do it (Brehm, 1966). On a study

conducted by (Sprengholz et al., 2021) they analyzed two events when it comes

vaccination that causes the most reactance. The first is vaccination mandates and

forceful campaigns, the hypothetical scenario of making vaccination mandatory

caused people to show high reactance (Betsch & Böhm, 2016). The same goes for

campaigns about vaccines that contain material that explicitly forces people to get

vaccinated. Campaigns like these backfire, as the people feel like they are being

ordered to do it, which adds to vaccine hesitancy. The other scenario however,

adds to the demand for vaccine. The very first batches of COVID-19 vaccines

were scarce, which lead to the prioritization of certain population groups (e.g.

health professionals, vulnerable, and older people). This caused majority of the

population having to wait for months or even years to receive vaccination (Warren

& Lofstedt, 2021), the people in this scenario felt that their freedom to choose

when to get vaccinated was threatened, eliciting reactance. This increased the
demand for vaccines and raised complaints about the insufficient supply of doses

(Santora, 2021).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
 Figure 1: Cause and effect Relationship between Factors Affecting the

Perceptions of Students to Get Vaccinated and Willingness to Get Vaccinated

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

H1: Influences of Media and Communication is factor being considered in willingness to

get vaccinated.

H2: Regardless of past happenings revolving vaccines it does not have an effect to

student’s willingness to get vaccinated.

H3: COVID-19 Disease Specific Influences is factor being considered in willingness to

get vaccinated.

H4: COVID-19 Vaccine Specific Influences is factor being considered in willingness to

get vaccinated.

H5: A student’s socio-demographic profile and context does not affect their willingness

to get vaccinated.

H6: Personal Factors is factor being considered in willingness to get vaccinated.

Definition of Terms

 COVID-19: An infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 Pandemic: A global epidemic that spreads to more than one continent.

 Vaccine: a biological preparation designed to acquire immunity to a certain

infectious disease.

 Vaccine Hesitancy: It refers to the willingness, whether willing or

unwilling, to get vaccinated despite the availability of the vaccine in the area

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. LOCAL

Scared, Powerless, Insulted and Embarrassed: Hesitancy Towards Vaccines

Among Caregivers in Cavite Province, the Philippines

The study of (Guevarra et al., 2021), “Scared, Powerless, Insulted and

Embarrassed: Hesitancy towards Vaccines among Caregivers in Cavite Province, the

Philippines” conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 44 VHCs in rural and urban

areas in Cavite Province, Philippines. They are people who had previously delayed or

rejected immunization for their children. In the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic, they

performed IDIs using an internet platform chosen by the respondents (ie, Facebook

messenger call, Skype and Zoom). All interviews were taped, transcribed, translated,

and analyzed using constructivist grounded theory principles. Their findings are

organized using the social ecology model. Fear of adverse effects appeared as the most

common reason for delaying or refusing kid immunizations, worsened by past

unpleasant experiences (including trauma) from a dengue vaccine debate in 2017.

Respondents expressed skepticism (of any new vaccinations) and hesitation (of any new

vaccines) in light of the dengue vaccine issue (towards school-based vaccination, the

distribution channel used for the dengue vaccine). Household heads opposed to

vaccinations, beliefs that vaccines are unnecessary, and pressures from social and

traditional media or neighbors all led to increased vaccine rejection and delay. When

probed, VHCs expressed worries about the health-care system, specifically about

healthcare staff that are sometimes unable to answer their queries and can be dismissive

or contemptuous of caregivers' concerns.

The study of Grade 12 STEM researchers demonstrates that a variety of

psychological causes may be the source of vaccination hesitancy, and they all believe

that experience is a major influence in people's skepticism about getting vaccinated.

Respondents described a decline in vaccine uptake as a result of the Dengvaxia scandal

and subsequent propagation of disinformation through social and traditional media,

which is similarly a factor being considered in the papers of the Grade 12 STEM

researchers specifically historical influences and influences of mass media. According

to a study (Guevarra et al., 2021), vaccine hesitant caregivers (VHCs) expressed acute

concerns about 'new vaccines' as compared to those with a long history, which is a

vaccine specific factor also being considered in the paper. The paper of the researchers

however would not be giving emphasis to historical influences although the paper

considered it as a factor for vaccine hesitancy. Unlike the paper, the research of

(Guevarra et al., 2021) had respondents that vividly remember the wake of the

Dengvaxia scandal whereas the younger respondents of this paper would not consider

this factor in their decision making.

Interrogating COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the Philippines with a Nationwide

Open-Access Online Survey

The research from (Caple, 2021) that aimed to determine the extent of

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the country gathered their data by developing a

nationwide open-access online survey designed for Filipinos that are at least 18 years

old or above. The survey was made available two months prior the start of the national

vaccination program. The survey consists the following; (a) demographics, health

status, and COVID-19 experience, (b) intent to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, (c)

perceive susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 vaccine, (d) perceived benefits of a

COVID-19 Vaccine, (e) willingness to pay, and (f) confidence in COVID-19 vaccine

made in other countries.

The study of (Caple, 2021) gathered a total of 7,193 complete survey

responses. They organized the results in the following categories: health beliefs,

COVID-19 vaccination intent, willingness to pay, and vaccine brand preference. On the

health beliefs category, (Caple, 2021) found out that 31.5% of the responses were about

the worries that there is a high chance of personally contracting COVID-19 in the next

few months after getting vaccinated. 84.1% said that they are worried in the likelihood

of getting the virus and 96.3% believed that COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness.

93.1% reported that they are afraid of getting infected and 75% said that they would get
very sick if they tested positive for the virus. The percentage of believing that COVID-

19 vaccine would decrease the chances of getting COVID-19 and that it would alleviate

their anxieties about catching the virus were also very high, about 88.1% and 84.5%

respectively (Caple, 2021). Many participants also answered that they would only get

the vaccine if others receive it (72.8%) and if politicians get vaccinated (68.2%). (Caple,

2021) was able to identify other reasons for the hesitancy, those are; worries about the

significant side-effects (89.6%), vaccine’s effectiveness (87.1%), safety (88.8%),

vaccines being pricey (78%), and worries about possible fake jabs (97.4%). For the

vaccination intent category, Caple (2021) was able to determine whether the participants

of the open-access survey are hesitant or not in getting vaccinated. 4,497 or about

62.5% of the total gathered responses shows that they are willing to be vaccinated. The

remaining 2,696 (37.4%) answered that they wouldn’t get the vaccine. Few participants

said that they are willing to pay Php 1,000 (21%) and Php 500 (18.8%) for the vaccines.

Caple (2021) also discussed the possibility of Filipinos having brand preference in

getting vaccinated. 59.7% indicated that they are confident or completely confident

(23.1%) in vaccines made from USA and Europe, (38.2%, 16.5%) are completely not

confident or not confident (46. 8%, 49.2%) in vaccines made in China and Russia,

respectively.

The research paper of Grade 12 STEM students will also be tackling some

of the factors mentioned in the paper of (Caple, 2021), such as COVID-19 vaccine

specific influences and vaccine preference. Their study also recognized common

misconceptions about COVID-19 as factors affecting hesitancy such as people

perceiving that those who get vaccinated are the ones who would catch COVID-19

almost immediately. The study of (Caple, 2021) shows a detailed interrogation of the

factors that influences the reluctance of Filipinos getting vaccinated, however it can be

subjected to some errors. The research used an open-access surveys that is almost

immediately subjected to bias because anyone can access the survey as long as they

have internet connection. The demographic can’t be classified and described because it

is not targeted to a specific age group just the broad idea of “those 18 and above”. The
respondents against or in favor could also ultimately seek this survey in order to change

the results. The respondents are also skewed to individuals that reside in urban parts of

the country. Lastly, the research study was carried out before the national vaccination

program was implemented hence that there are possibilities that the view of COVID-19

vaccines have changed (Caple, 2021).

Social Trauma as a Contributory Factor in Filipino’s Vaccine Hesitancy

The article of (Vergara, 2021) shows the vaccine hesitancy as a major

challenge in the Philippines, despite the government's efforts to urge the public to join

in the COVID-19 immunization campaign. As the Philippine government has finally

commenced administering COVID-19 vaccines after lengthy delays, there is still a high

amount of apprehension about the COVID-19 immunizations due to the pre-existing

conditions of societal traumas wherein reducing or eliminating vaccine reluctance

among Filipinos will be extremely difficult.

The study examines how varied Filipino experiences contribute to social

trauma and vaccine apprehension. The Filipinos' social traumas around the Dengvaxia

vaccine and geopolitical controversies must be addressed in order to restore public trust.

Remembering history, one of the most contentious vaccines, Dengvaxia, has killed over

600 individuals, mostly infants, and no one was held responsible and sanctioned to date

regarding the issue. Issues between Philippines and China, the origin of the vaccine,

play a vital role for the hesitancy as well of which doesn’t help that China is one of the

major suppliers of vaccines in the country, as some view it as a political agenda.

An emphasis on good communication was acknowledged and advised as a

method to lessen vaccine hesitancy and promote public trust in a recent correspondence

in this journal. Traumas damage victim’s ‘ability to enter into a trusting relationship

(Judith Herman, 1998). She perceived that there are stages of trauma recovery, which

are safety, acknowledgement and reconnection that will regain the trust of the people for

its government. People can’t undo the past and accepting what has happened is there
left. Through the study, it is hoped that the government would make openness and

justice the cornerstones of the immunization campaign.

Similarly to the researcher’s study, it aims to know the factors affecting the

refusal of vaccination, exploring the reasons why they are hesitant to be vaccinated. The

paper also recognized that government agencies especially the health department plays

the most important role when it comes to steering people to the right direction.

COVID-19 vaccine brand hesitancy and other challenges to vaccination in the

Philippines

The study of (Amil et al., 2021) they discovered vaccine hesitancy and other

barriers as major problem in achieving immunization in the Philippines. This includes

individual, interpersonal, and/or structural factors that combine to impact decisions. Due

to its rapid distribution via social media and sensationalism in traditional media, vaccine

brand hesitation and misinformation are common, necessitating the promotion of health

literacy and critical thinking. Individuals involved in vaccination promotion initiatives

may need to be retrained on how to deal with public vaccine “denialists”. Data from

interviews conducted in Filipino, Cebuano, and/or English via online platforms such as

Zoom or over the phone were used in the study. Questions about COVID-19, vaccines,

and risk perceptions and behaviors were included in the interview guide. They

embedded the findings within the social ecological model with three broad themes:

individual factors (attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, behaviors), interpersonal factors

(relationships and social networks), and structural factors (relationships and social

networks) to highlight the complex reasons for delaying and/or refusing COVID-19

vaccination (health systems, and policies, regulations, and laws at the local, national,

and global level). This research supports the findings of other studies that show a slew

of individual, interpersonal, and structural barriers that work individually or collectively

against vaccination uptake and reach, with some of the barriers not actionanle at the

individual and interpersonal level, such as political issues. They found that exposure to

misinformation spread by networks, key health figures and institutions, and the media
has a significant impact on people's perceptions, beliefs, and experiences. Trust in the

health system was also a major factor in getting the COVID-19 vaccine. They also

found out that vaccine hesitancy and poor vaccine uptake are further impacted by

vaccine hesitancy issues arising from the highly politicized Dengvaxia controversy, in

which individuals, particularly parents of school-aged children, believed that health

institutions and governments were testing on them. In addition, vaccination rates in the

Philippines are negatively impacted by insufficient supplies, logistical obstacles, and

perceived institutional inefficiencies and inflexibilities.

The study of (Amit et al., 2021) is similar to the paper in that it aims to

know about people's perceptions. Exposure to misinformation perpetuated by the media,

the community, and the health system shapes such perceptions. The study also used a

mixed-methods study, which allowed respondents to express their opinions and

experiences. The disadvantages of this research design are that it can be quite

complicated, and it might be difficult to figure out how to reconcile disagreement in the

interpretation of the results. Mixed-method designs allow for different mediums for data

collection, with some respondents subjected to interviews some were in the form of

surveys but the results were concluded combining the different methodologies. These

allow for difference in perceptions because of the advantages and limitations of both

data collecting process.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: ‘best vaccine is the one that is available’ versus

‘waiting for what is good is the best option’

The article of (Lacsa, 2021), “COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: ‘best vaccine is

the one that is available’ versus ‘waiting for what is good is the best option’”, focuses

mainly on the brand preference of residents in the Philippines. The paper described

Filipinos as “choosy”, with having specific vaccine preferences and using this as an

excuse to not get vaccinated. Common lies of inquiry would fall along, “The brand I

prefer is not available, I would not get the vaccine just yet” and “I don’t trust this

specific brand it is made by _____”. The government however begs to differ. Numerous
health campaigns were launched sharing sentiments that the best vaccine is the vaccine

that is available. On how the brand of the vaccine does not matter because the function

is the same. The government even went too far as to withhold what brand of vaccines

are available during the earliest vaccination here in the country (Lacsa, 2021).This of

course sparked controversy from the public as they informed the media on how they

were given a letter to sign that read, “Informed Consent”, without even knowing the

brand of vaccine that were being injected into their bodies until they were there at the

last minute. Other Filipinos are also worrying that the vaccines are political agenda on

how eager President Duterte was in advocating for the vaccines developed by China

even going as far to get injected by “Sinopharm”, a vaccine brand not yet accepted by

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This increased public unrest and vaccine

hesitancy among Filipinos. Unlike other countries the Philippines relies on foreign

countries for vaccines because it cannot domestically make its own. The administration

in recent public interview wants to prioritize only a certain country and hopes China

will ‘prioritize’ the Philippines when it develops a coronavirus vaccine (Lacsa, 2021).

The study of (Lacsa, 2021) proves the existence of COVID-19 vaccine

related factors, specifically that of Filipinos having brand preference. It can be likened

that Filipinos are imploring, “Comparison shopping”, where they are trying to weigh

down the pros and cons of clearly similar products but just under different names. The

research of the Grade 12-STEM researchers theorized that the reactance theory of

(Brehm, 1966) would be at play in vaccination which was clearly proven by the article

clearly enunciating how the forceful campaigns of the health department on not letting

people know the vaccines available caused the public great unrest and high reactance.

Both papers recognize that vaccine preference is indeed a hindrance in attaining herd

immunity as more and more people are losing out on the supply of their “preferred

brand” as simultaneously they get uninterested in getting vaccinated. The behavior of

the people ultimately slows down the inoculation efforts of the government and “not

preferred vaccines but are available” are getting wasted.

B. FOREIGN

Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: An International Survey among

Low- and Middle-Income Countries

The study of (Bono et al., 2021) took a different approach to the entire

vaccine hesitancy and willingness schematic by using a perceived effectiveness in their

survey. In their study entitled, “Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance: An

International Survey among Low- and Middle-Income Countries”, they used two

presumed vaccine effectiveness one at (90%) and another at (95%) effectiveness to

determine the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy. The study used a cross-sectional survey

design to a sample of 10, 183 respondents from a total of 10, 491 with a 2.9% margin of

error. Respondents of the study were from nine Low-and Middle-Income Countries

(LMICs) namely: Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, and five African countries

(Democratic Republic of Congo, Benin, Uganda, Malawi, and Mali) and Brazil. The

results of the study showed a direct relationship between vaccine effectiveness and

vaccine willingness, with vaccine acceptance as high as 76.4% for 90% effectiveness to

88.8% at 95% effectiveness. The higher the vaccine effectiveness the more willing are

people to get vaccinated. Results also showed higher vaccine acceptance with

respondents that have existing COVID-19 knowledge, have negative emotions towards

the COVID-19 such as worry and fear, those with higher income, younger age, and

those who have tested negative for COVID-19. However, existing chronic diseases (e.g.

heart conditions, diabetes, asthma, and etc.) and those who have identified themselves

as females have reduced odds for vaccine acceptance. The main reasons underpinning

vaccine refusal were fear of side effects (41.2%) and lack of confidence in vaccine

effectiveness (15.1%).

The Grade 12 STEM groups of researchers recount this study’s evaluation

that the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy were fear of side effects and lack of

medicines effectiveness. Fear of adverse effects is a major factor in patients' poor

adherence. The possibility of negative effects causes special concern for some people.

Another aspect that was included in the study of (Bono et al., 2021) are self-perceived
socio-economic status, chronic diseases, gender, COVID-19 knowledge, and negative

emotions towards the virus which are also factors included in this study. The study of

(Bono et al., 2021) however has some differences with the paper. They opted for a

cross-sectional survey that is purely descriptive and does not provide contextual

information. This data gathering instrument cannot determine if the conclusion is

determined prior to the disease or after and does not provide causal relationship between

the variables. The study, “Factors Affecting the Perceptions of the High School Students

of Montessori De San Ildefonso Yet to Be Vaccinated Academic Year 2021-2022”,

however would unlock the causal relationship between the variables.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Canada: Content Analysis of Tweets Using

Theoretical Domains Framework

The study of (Griffith et al., 2021), “COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in

Canada: Content Analysis of Tweets Using Theoretical Domains Framework” used a

social media platform, Twitter, as a means of the data gathering instrument and a

qualitative research design. A total of 3915 tweets from public Twitter profiles in

Canada were screened using the search words “vaccine” and “COVID.” These numbers

were further narrowed down to tweets specifically talking about “COVID-19 vaccine

hesitancy” and were coded via content analysis. A total of 605 tweets were coded and

analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework. According to (Griffith et al., 2021)

48.3% (292 tweets out of 605) are centered on safety. The tweets expressed concerns

that the vaccine would cause more harm than good, give severe side effects, and that

COVID-19 vaccines were not tested properly due to how fast it was developed

compared to other vaccines. 32.4% or 196 tweets out of 605 are about the skepticism

toward the political motivations behind vaccine development. Under these are the

conspiracy theories that politicians use COVID-19 vaccines as a vehicle to have a full

control on citizens, and tweets from Canadian citizens that were influenced by the U.S

government about rushing the approval of the vaccines. 159 tweets or about 26.3% are

expressing the lack of knowledge about vaccines in general and herd immunity.
Minority of the gathered tweets are about confusing messages from authorities or public

authorities not getting vaccinated (8.4%), mistrust towards the medical community

(4%), and lack of legal liability (3.1%).

The research paper of the Grade 12 STEM researchers would also be

tackling some of the factors raised by the paper of (Griffith et al., 2021) such as the

existing knowledge of respondents about vaccines in general (i.e. misconceptions about

vaccines) and the population’s sentiment about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines having

adverse effects as both papers have recognized that they play a major part in influencing

the target population's decision-making. Lack of knowledge about how immunizations

work is also a roadblock to obtaining a fully vaccinated population. However the

research of (Griffith et al., 2021) can be subjected to bias because of their choice of data

gathering instrument. Twitter is a public domain that can be accessed by anyone and

there is way of verifying the identity of those who answered. There is a possibility in

using dummy accounts as mean of spreading misinformation and vaccine hesitancy

sentiments so the study could not be used as a reflection of the general population. The

researchers would use a survey as a means of a data gathering instrument to reduce

possible bias that may occur in the data gathering procedure. The use of the Theoretical

Domain Framework limits the presentation of data in retrospect. Rather than explaining

how a behavior took place it will provide possible factors that influenced the behavior

completely removing the possibility of establishing a cause and effect relationship

(Nilsen, 2015).

Socio-demographic, Psychological, and Experiential Predictors of COVID-19

Vaccine Hesitancy in South Korea, October-December 2020

The study of (Hwang et al., 2021) implored a widely used self-report

instrument for evaluating the reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The

questionnaire distributed intends to gather data on socio-demographic, psychological,

and experimental factors of the refusal of the vaccination. Respondents of the survey of

were from (n = 13,021 adults) from sampled households gathered from October to
December 2020. The study found out that 39.8% of the respondents have no intention of

taking the COVID-19 vaccine. The main reason for the refusal to the vaccine is the lack

of confidence and trust of individuals to the vaccine itself. Another factor is influenced

by complacency or the absence of fear towards contracting the virus. It is perceived that

those who had positive experiences and minor impacts in their daily lives during the

COVID-19 pandemic are less likely to get vaccinated (Hwang et al., 2021). The study

concluded that individuals are uncertain and hesitating mainly due to lack of trust

towards vaccines; they have unstable job status, low incomes, and have no fear towards

the virus. Socio-demographic factors such as age and religious affiliation also affects

the decision to get vaccinated.

The study actively demonstrates that during COVID-19 pandemic,

numerous factors contribute to vaccine hesitancy. Similarly to the paper, it aims to

know the factors affecting one’s decision to get the vaccine. The results of the data

gathering procedure of the paper showed 36% of respondents are hesitant towards

getting COVID-19 vaccines. This paper however would only be focusing around

students of Montessori De San Ildefonso, Bulacan aged 12 and above unlike the wide

age bracket in the study of (Hwang et al., 2021).

Factors Affecting COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

In the recent study of (Soares et al., 2021) they identified factors affecting

people's hesitancy to get the COVID-19 vaccine, including data on their intention to get

COVID-19 vaccines, their health status, and their risk perception. The study used data

from the community-based survey "COVID-19 Barometer", instead of formulating their

own study and instead just aims to categorize the answers of individuals into a variety

of contextual, individual, and group factors, as well as vaccine-specific factors. The

survey they used contains data on perception risk, health status, social experiences, and

use of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is an open cohort study;

participants can answer the questionnaire once or more than once. The findings of this

study regarding factors associated with delaying or refusing the COVID-19 vaccine are
in agreement with previous studies that examined the population in the first semester of

2020. These factors are the low or nonexistent perceived risk of getting COVID-19 and

lack of trust in the government. They also found out that younger individuals had higher

odds of refusal and females had higher odds of delay. The study also found that lower

trust in/poorer perception of the government and the measures they have implemented,

health service response, and information provided by health authorities were associated

with delaying or refusing COVID-19 vaccine. This study found that confidence in the

COVID-19 vaccines being developed was associated with higher chances of being

vaccinated. Specific vaccine concerns regarding its safety and potential side effects are

consistently among the main reasons found in the study for not being vaccinated when

the COVID-19 vaccine is ready. The study also found that individuals with poorer

perception of their health and with comorbidities had lower odds of refusal.

The study of (Soares et al., 2021) is similar to the paper in ways that there is

an attempt to group the factors in specific categories. The paper however added two

categories to the existing groupings of (Soares et al., 2021) such as Influence of Media

and Communication and Historical Influences, as the researchers recognized the

important role the mass media plays in shaping the opinions of the population. The

study of (Soares et al., 2021) also used an open cohort study that allows respondents to

answer the survey more than once and leave when they want. This design allows for

individuals who changed their perception to change their answers or leave the study in

its entirety. The study of (Soares et al., 2021) compared results with another study that

used the same open cohort study but during a different time frame (in 2020) and found

similar results. The disadvantage of this research design is that it changes over time and

data would not remain constant and it is not a reliable reference for results. Differential

results over very small time frames results in perceived bias. The study of (Soares et al.,

2021) is also different in this paper in a way that they separated vaccine hesitancy with

vaccine refusal, wherein the paper used the definition of (MacDonald et al., 2015) that

incorporates refusal and hesitancy under one definition.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Medical Students

Physicians play an important role in the acceptance of patients and the

general public when it comes to vaccines. A fact that was highlighted by the study of

(Lucia et al., 2020) that focused on the sentiments and opinions of medical students of a

single medical school in Southwest Michigan. In their study entitled, “COVID-19

Vaccine Hesitancy among Medical Students”, they assessed the perceptions of the 168

out of 494 students of the school in terms of (i) behavior on pervious immunization

experiences (or the lack of); (ii) general attitudes and perception of vaccines; (iii)

current knowledge/interest about COVID-19 vaccine; (iv) perceived likelihood of

COVID-19 infection; and (v) personal experience with COVID-19. The study included

both the perceptions of students who have only pre-clinical experiences or those who

have not yet participated in clinical practice under the guidance of a health practitioner

to those who have clinical experiences. The study noted that those who have no clinical

experience have lower acceptance to the vaccine. The results showed that 98% of

students have perceived risks towards the COVID-19 and have self-awareness that as

medical practitioners they would come in contact with the virus. However only only

53% of the students indicated that they would participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial

and 23% of students were unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine immediately upon

becoming available. The study holds perceived side-effects and low confidence in the

COVID-19 vaccine because of how fast it was developed as the main culprits for low

vaccine confidence.

Both the study of (Lucia et al., 2020) and the paper recognized the

importance of the inclusion of the perceptions of students with regards to vaccine

hesitancy in their future roles in society, the study of (Lucia et al., 2020) more so.

However the study of (Lucia et al., 2020) can be subjected to bias with their low

response rate. Respondents may also have been predominantly influenced by exposure

to COVID-19 vaccine-related topics in the media, a factor that they have not accounted

for in their study. This paper would consider the influence of mass media to the

perceptions of its respondents being a tech savvy generation. The results of this paper
 may differ in the 98% risk perception of the paper of (Lucia et al., 2020) as the

respondents of the study is not exclusive to students who are going to take up medicine

and will be coming from different fields of chosen specializations.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The research paper would be utilizing a quantitative research design where

data can be quantified, have larger sample sizes, structured procedures, and formal

instruments for data collection (Queirós et al., 2017). These qualities of quantitative

research allows for the results to be taken as the general and comprehensive view of the

population. Using this research, data can be treated fairly and respondents would be

chosen with less bias that created more objective and grounded conclusions. Under the

several designs of quantitative research, the researchers chose to use a causal-

comparative research design. This research design aims to unlock the cause and effect

relationship between its variables. This is the most advantageous for the overall role of

the research which is to determine the factors that cause vaccine hesitancy and demand
across the population of students in an aim to supplement the lacking data and knowledge

regarding his important topic.

Sample Size

An appropriate sample size renders a more efficient and better quantitative

research that aims to provide generalizations to the population. If the sample size is

determined correctly, enough to properly represent the population data generated are

reliable and resource investment would be limited as possible (Faber & Fonsenca, 2014).

Causal-comparative and experimental studies require equal to or more than 50 samples

(Delice, 2016). The inclusion of a very small sample size would undermine the internal

and external validity of a study. But a large sample size tends to transform small

differences into statistically augmented differences that significantly interfere with the

results. For this reason, the researchers limited the sample size within the range of 50-100

respondents. To determine the target sample size of the research, the researchers first

collected the data for the entire population. The population is a complete collection of

people, objects, or numerical values that the researchers wish to draw a sample from. The

population for the study is the number of students enrolled in Montessori De San

Ildefonso Academic Year 2021-2022 from Grades 8-12 (determined to include those only

12 years and above). From the population (N = 297), a sample size of (n = 50)

respondents would be taken. The population of students from Grades 8-12 was

determined from the parent’s directory record of the school (2021 - 2022) as requested by

the researchers to the relative personnel. The researchers decided to go with this number

because of the low response rates of surveys and questionnaires in this time of the

pandemic.

Participants were asked if they wanted to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

Respondents who choose not to receive the COVID-19 vaccine were asked specific

questions about their vaccine hesitancy.

Grade Level Number of Students

Grade 8 39
Grade 9 53

Grade 10 68

Grade 11 67

Grade 12 70

Total: 297

Table 1.1: Population of Students from Grade 8-12

Sampling Technique

Quantitative research designs facilitate for random sampling techniques,

were the respondents to be used in the study are chosen randomly. Since quantitative

researches would offer generalizations to the entire population it is proper to remove all

possible biases. That is why the researches opted for random sampling techniques. To be

more specifically the research would be using stratified random sampling technique that

involves the division of the population into different subgroups or “strata”. This is

preferable for the research that would be using respondents from different grade levels

(Grade 8 - 12), to ensure that they are properly represented in the research. The

population of students per grade level (Table 1.1) was determined from obtaining official

transcripts of records from the school and was used to determine the sample size per

strata. Random samples are taken from the different strata using mathematical

computations (Table 1.2) and combined to create the sample. Using this technique the

researchers are able to make generalizations with more validity.

Grade Level n Sample Size per Stratum

x Stratum ¿ ¿
N

Grade 8 (50/297) x 39 = 7

Grade 9 (50/297) x 53 = 9

Grade 10 (50/297) x 68 = 11

Grade 11 (50/297) x 67 = 11

Grade 12 (50/297) x 70 = 12
 Table 1.2: Sample Size of Students from Grade 8-12

Research Locale

Figure 1.1: Montessori De San Ildefonso

Figure 1.2: Map of Research Locale

The research was conducted and ended within the premises of Montessori

De San Ildefonso located at Quijano Street, San Juan, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. The

researchers knew the limitations of their capabilities and are aware of the travel
constraints of the pandemic, so they did not conduct the research in public but

nonetheless were still within the school domain albeit done virtually.

Research Instrument

In order to gather data from the respondents, the researchers created a self-

made survey containing necessary questions in line with the objectives of the study. The

researcher decided to use a survey as the research instrument because internet-based

surveys facilitate for the access to new and broader populations with a wider base

characteristic, collection of quality data that enhances confidence in research study

conclusions, and it also saves time and money (Rice et al., 2017). The survey comprises

of the determinants of student’s vaccine hesitancy or acceptance, perceptions of students

and factors that led to those perceptions, and the reason why they are hesitant or willing

to get the vaccine. The development of the self-made survey took idea from the COVID-

19 questions based on Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE)

Action Plan Guidance Covid-19 Preparedness and Response developed by World Health

Organization (WHO) and from the COVID-19 vaccine specific questions based on

COVID-19 Barometer: A Social Opinion (Laires et al., 2020). Lastly, the survey is

divided into 5 parts: (Part I) the consent letter, of which asks the participants for their

cooperation in the study; (Part II) the socio-demographic profile and contextual factors of

the respondents, (Part III) vaccine knowledge and misconception, (Part IV) vaccine

hesitancy or demand, and (Part V) factors affecting student’s perceptions. Questions in

the surveys compromises mostly of dichotomous questions wherein respondents are

given two choices (Yes/No and Agree/Disagree) and only one option could be chosen.

Data Gathering Procedure

Due to the ongoing pandemic, the survey questions were distributed using

an online platform called Google forms. The researchers will conduct the data gathering

procedure by sending the link of the survey to the respondents of the research. A letter of

correspondence was sent to the advisers of each section to ask for their help in
distributing the research instrument to their respective students. This is because of the

social limitations imposed by the pandemic; the researchers have no means of contacting

other grade levels aside from their own. The data gathering procedure began on

November 22, 2021 and ended on November 26, 2021. A letter enclosed with the survey

instrument requests consent to conduct a survey and guarantees the confidentiality and

privacy of personal information acquired through the online survey. The personal

information of the respondents such as their name, age, and gender, would remain

anonymous. The opinions, insight, feelings, and statements of the respondents would be

only used for the purpose of this research.

Data Analysis

Because of the high concentration of numerical data in the research paper,

there is a need to quantify and translate these data into recognizable forms of statistical

descriptions and illustrations to give meaning and value to these data. Data analyses

allow for the dissemination of data in a manner that would be understandable to the

readers and one where researchers can draw conclusions from. Descriptive and inferential

statistics were used in the analysis. Descriptive statistics, such as tables, graphs,

percentages, means, medians, modes, and standard deviations, are used to determine how

numerous factors influence vaccine responses. Specifically for the results of the (Part IV)

of the data gathering procedure, a pie chart would be used. A pie chart allows for the

comparison of data as part of the whole, which is an objective of the paper to compare the

percentage of that part of the hesitancy from those who are part of the demand. For the

(Part V) of the survey form or the factors affecting the perceptions of students, would use

bar graphs that on the other hand allow for the comparison of the responses from each

other.
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data gathering procedure officially stopped accepting respondents on

November 26, 2021. Data from the research instrument was carefully collected and the

researchers proceeded to the treatment and analysis of the data. The researchers analyzed

the given data using different statistical measures and categorized all the answers of the

respondents. The results of the data analysis would be projected using descriptive

statistics such as graphical representations supplemented by written descriptions under

each table and graph.

A. CONTEXTUAL AND SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES

a. Age

Ages Frequency Percent (%) Valid Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

12 2 4 4 4

13 4 8 8 12

14 10 20 20 32

15 9 18 18 50

16 7 14 14 64

17 17 34 34 98

18 1 2 2 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 2: Respondent’s Age

A ge of R espondents
18

17

16

15

14

13

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Age of Respondents

Figure 2: Graphical Representation of the Ages of the Respondents

The research required the participation of only the students aged 12 and

above as illustrated by the graph, hence the exclusion of Grade 7 respondents. In Table 2,

there are seven categories of ages: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 years old. The highest
frequency of respondents are those aged 17 with a frequency of 17 (34%), followed by 14

years old with a frequency of 10 (20%), 15 years old with a frequency of 9 (18%), 16

years old with a frequency of 7 (14%), 13 years old with a frequency of 4 (8%), 12 years

old with a frequency of 2 (4), and lastly those aged 18 years old with a frequency of 1

(2%) the lowest.

b. Sex

Sex Frequency Percent (%) Valid Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Female 39 78 78 78

Male 11 22 22 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 3: Respondent’s Sex

Sex of Respondents
Female Male

22%

78%
 Figure 3: Graphical Representation of the Sex of Respondents

Figure 3 shows that 78% of the total respondents of the paper are from the

female members of the population and 22% are from male members of the

population.

c. Monthly Family Income

Valid Cumulative
Percent
Monthly Family Income Frequency Percent Percent
(%)
(%) (%)

Below Php10,957.00 21 42 42 42

Php10,957.00 – Php21,914.00 14 28 28 70

Php21,914.00 – Php43,828.00 3 6 6 76

Php43,828.00 – Php76,669.00 9 18 18 94

Php76,669.00 – Php131,484.00 1 2 2 96

Php131,484.00 – Php219,140.00 2 4 4 100

Above Php219,140.00 0 0 0 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 4: Respondent’s Family Income

 Monthly Incom e of R espondents
Monthly Income of Respondents

Above P219, 140

P131,484-P219,140

P76,669-P131,484

P43,828-P76,669

P21,914-P43,828

P10,957-P21,914

Below P10,957

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 4: Graphical Representation of Monthly Incomes of Respondents

As presented in Table 4, there are seven categories of monthly family

income as derived from the income bracket of the Philippines (Alto Broadcasting

System and Chronicle Broadcasting Network [ABS-CBN], 2021): below Php10,957

monthly income (42%), P10,957 to P21,914 monthly income (28%), P21,914 to

P43,828 monthly income (6%), P43,828 to P76,66 monthly income (18%), P76,669

to P131,484 monthly income (2%), P131,483 to P219,140 monthly income (4%), and

above P219,140 monthly income (0%). The researchers found a negative relation

between family income and vaccine hesitancy. Majority of those who are hesitant to

get vaccinated have lower perceived monthly family income.

d. Partial or Total Income Loss Because of the Pandemic

Response Frequency Percent (%) Valid Percent (%) Cumulative Percent (%)

Yes 37 74 74 74

No 13 26 26 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 5: Partial or Total Income Loss Because of the Pandemic

 Par ti al or total loss of income because
of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Yes No

26%

74%

Figure 5.1: Graphical Representation of Partial or Total Income Loss of the

Respondents Because of the Pandemic

those who have suff er ed income loses

becaus e of the pandemic's Demand for
vaccines
YES

100%

Figure 5.2: Graphical Representation of the Relation of Those Who Have Suffered

Partial or Total Income Loss Because of the Pandemic to the Demand for the Vaccine

Table 5 presents the frequency distribution of those who have suffered

partial to total income loss because of the pandemic to those who haven’t. 37 out of

50 respondents (76%) answered “Yes” from the survey question, “Have you suffered
partial or total loss of income because of the COVID-19 pandemic?” and proclaim

that their income did suffer some losses. On the other hand 13 out of 50 (26%)

respondents answered “No”, or they didn’t suffer from any financial struggle because

of the pandemic.

B. VACCINE KNOWLEDGE AND MISCONCEPTIONS

a. Viral diseases can disappear because of better hygiene and sanitation that

is why there is no need for vaccines.

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Agree 29 58 58 58

Disagree 21 42 42 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 6.1: Vaccine Knowledge and Misconceptions

b. Vaccines make you more vulnerable to getting infected to the COVID-19

virus.

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Agree 37 74 74 74

Disagree 13 26 26 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 6.2: Vaccine Knowledge and Misconceptions

c. Vaccines have harmful side effects, can cause illnesses and even death,

and have underlying long term effects.

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Agree 25 50 50 50
 Disagree 25 50 50 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 6.3: Vaccine Knowledge and Misconceptions

d. Vaccinating not only protects you, but also protects those in the

community who are unable to be vaccinated.

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Agree 48 96 96 96

Disagree 2 4 4 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 6.4: Vaccine Knowledge and Misconceptions

e. Getting multiple vaccines for different diseases can overload the immune

system

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Agree 34 68 68 68

Disagree 16 32 32 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 6.5: Vaccine Knowledge and Misconceptions

Respondents were asked five (5) questions that ask whether they agree or not.

On the statement, viral diseases can disappear because of better hygiene and

sanitation that is why there is no need for vaccines, 29 participants (58%) agreed and

21 participants (42%) disagreed. For the second question, 74% or about 37

respondents agreed that vaccines make you more vulnerable to getting infected with

the COVID-19 virus and 26% or about 13 of them thinks the opposite. Among the 50

participants, 25 or 50% of them agreed that vaccines have harmful side effects, can
 cause illnesses and even death, and have underlying long term effects while the other

50% disagreed. For the fourth question, 48 participants or about 96% agreed that

vaccinating does not only protects yourself, but also protects those in the community

who are unable to be vaccinated while the remaining 4% or 2 participants disagreed.

Lastly, 68% or about 34 respondents agreed that getting multiple vaccines for

different diseases can overload the immune system while the remaining 32% or 16

participants disagreed.

Vaccine Assessment
Disagree Agree

Getting multiple vaccines for different diseases can overload the immune
system

Vaccinating not only protects yourself, but also protects those in the
community who are unable to be vaccinated

Vaccines have harmful side effects, can cause illnesses and even death,
and have underlying long term effects

Vaccines make you more vulnerable to getting infected to the COVID-19

virus

Viral diseases can disappear because of better hygiene and sanitation

that is why there is no need for vaccines

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Figure 6: Vaccine Assessment

The common misconceptions of people about vaccines as stated by

(WHO, 2020) were taken and placed in the Part III of the survey. Results are as

follow: 1). Viral diseases can disappear because of better hygiene and sanitation that

is why there is no need for vaccines wherein 58% of the respondents have a

misconception about this statement (Table 6.1). 2). Vaccines make you more

vulnerable to getting infected to the COVID-19 virus and 74% of the sample have a

misconception about this (Table 6.2). 3). Vaccines have harmful side effects, can

cause illnesses and even death, and have underlying long term effects at 50% rate of

misconception (Table 6.4). 4). Vaccinating not only protects you, but also protects
those in the community who are unable to be vaccinated with a fraction of the

population at 4% having a misconception. 5). Getting multiple vaccines for different

diseases can overload the immune system wherein 68% of the population had this

misconception. A total percentage of 51% of the respondents have common

misconceptions about vaccines needed to be addressed.

C. VACCINE HESITANCY OR DEMAND

Would you consider getting vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 32 64 64 64

No 18 36 36 100

Total: 50 100 100

Table 7: Vaccine Hesitancy and Demand

Would you consider getti ng vaccinated?

Yes No

36%

64%

Figure 7: Vaccine Hesitancy and Demand

Figure 7 shows the comparison of those who are willing to those who are

hesitant in getting COVID-19 vaccine by percentage. Among the total of 50

participants, 64% (about 32 of them) indicates willingness to get vaccinated while the

remaining 36% (about 18 of them) shows hesitance.

D. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DEMAND OF VACCINES

Respondents’ perceptions about vaccines are fueled by certain factors. Table

8 presents these factors and would be categorized in 5 categories: Influence of Media

and Communication, Historical Influences, Contextual and Socio-demographic

Factors, Personal Factors, and COVID-19 Vaccine-Specific Factors, and COVID-19

Disease Specific Factors. Results tallied an overall mean of 1.69 (σ = 0.45), which

can be described as “Yes”. This translates that the factors presented in the study are

factors considered by respondents as part of their resolve in being willing to be

vaccinated.

Standard
Vaccine Demand Factors Mean DR
Deviation (σ)

1. Do you believe that vaccines are

effective that’s why you are willing to get 1.88 0.34 Yes
vaccinated?

2. Do you wish to travel elsewhere that’s

1.59 0.5 Yes
why you are willing to get vaccinated?

3. Are the negative emotions brought by

the lockdown (fear, anger, and anxiety) a
1.66 0.48 Yes
factor you considered for your
willingness to get vaccinated?
4. Do you believe that the pandemic
would end once everyone gets vaccinated
1.72 0.46 Yes
that’s why you are willing to get
vaccinated?

5. Is the fear of contracting the COVID-

19 virus a factor you have considered for 1.75 0.44 Yes
your willingness to get vaccinated?
6. Does the limited supply of
vaccines a factor you have considered for 1.5 0.50 Yes/No
your willingness to get vaccinated?

7. Have you seen articles, news, and

advertisements that show positive
1.72 0.46 Yes
portrayal of vaccines and did this make
you willing to get vaccinated?
Total: 1.69 0.45
Yes

Table 8: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

1. Do you believe that vaccines are effective that’s why you are willing to get

vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 28 88 88 88

No 4 12 12 100

Total: 32 100 100

Table 9.1: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

 Do you believe that vaccines ar e ef -
Figure f ecti ve that’s why you are willing to
get vaccinated?
8.1: Do you believe that vaccines are effective that’s why you are willing to get vaccinated?

Factors

No 12%

Yes 88%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the question, "Do you believe that vaccines are effective that’s why you

are willing to get vaccinated?” 28 out of 32 answered “Yes” (88%) on the other hand,

4 out of 32 answered “No” (12%) as presented in Table 9.1. This is a COVID-19

Vaccine-Specific Factor that pertains to the perceived vaccine effectiveness. The

higher percentage of “Yes” responses indicated that COVID-19 Vaccine-Specific

Factors are being considered when it comes to vaccine compliance.

2. Do you wish to travel elsewhere that’s why you are willing to get

vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 19 60 60 60

No 13 40 40 100

Total: 32 100 100

Table 9.2: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

 Do you wis h to tr avel els ewher e that’s
why you ar e willing to get vaccinated?

Do you wish to travel elsewhere that’s why you are willing to get vaccinated?

No 40%

Yes 60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 8.2: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For question number two, "Do you wish to travel elsewhere that’s why you

are willing to get vaccinated?" 19 out of 32 answered “Yes” (60%) on the other hand,

13 out of 32 answered “No” (40%) as presented in Table 9.2. This is a personal factor

as it is a personal endeavor of the respondent innate to themselves. A higher

percentage of “Yes” answers indicate that this is a factor being considered in the

decision of respondents to get vaccinated.

3. Are the negative emotions brought by the lockdown (fear, anger, and

anxiety) a factor you considered for your willingness to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 21 66 66 66

No 11 34 34 100

Total: 32 100 100

Table 9.3: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

 Are the negati ve emoti ons brought by
the lockdown (fear, anger, and anxiety)
a factor you considered for your will -
ingness to get vaccinated?

Are the negative emotions brought by the lockdown (fear, anger, and anxiety) a factor you considered for
your willingness to get vaccinated
No 34%

Yes 66%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 8.3: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the third question, "Are the negative emotions brought by the lockdown

(fear, anger, and anxiety) a factor you considered for your willingness to get

vaccinated?", 21 out of 32 answered “Yes” (66%) on the other hand, 11 out of 32

answered “No” (34%) as seen in Table 9.3. This is a COVID-19 disease specific

factor or loosely translated to as the negative emotions brought by the lockdown that

is brought by the virus itself. A higher percentage of “Yes” answers indicate that this

is a factor being considered in the decision-making process of respondents when it

comes to getting vaccinated.

4. Do you believe that the pandemic would end once everyone gets

vaccinated that’s why you are willing to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 23 72 72 72

No 9 28 28 100

Total: 32 100 100

Table 9.4: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

 Do you believe that the pandemic
would end once ever yone gets vacci -
nated that’s why you ar e willing to get
vaccinated?
Do you believe that the pandemic would end once everyone gets vaccinated that’s why you are willing to get vaccinated?

No 28%

Yes 72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Figure 8.4: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the fourth question as presented in Table 9.4, "Do you believe that the

pandemic would end once everyone gets vaccinated that’s why you are willing to get

vaccinated?", 23 out of 32 answered “Yes” (72%) on the other hand, 9 out of 32

answered “No” (28%). This is a COVID-19 disease specific factor that represents the

altruism and hope of respondents with regards to the pandemic. A higher percentage

of “Yes” answers indicate that this is that factor contributes to the demand for the

vaccine.

5. Is the fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus a factor you have

considered for your willingness to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 24 76 76 76

No 8 24 24 100

Total: 32 100 100

Table 9.5: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

 Is the f ear of contr acti ng the COVID-19
virus a f actor you have considered for
your willingness to get vaccinated?
Is the fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus a factor you have considered for your willingness to get vaccinated?

No 24%

Yes 76%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Figure 8.5: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the fifth question as presented in Table 9.5, "Is the fear of contracting

the COVID-19 virus a factor you have considered for your willingness to get

vaccinated?", 24 out of 32 answered “Yes” (76%) on the other hand, 8 out of 32

answered “No” (24%). This is a COVID-19 disease specific factor the presents the

innate fear of people in contracting the virus and the complications that comes with it.

A higher percentage of “Yes” answers indicate that this is that factor affects to the

demand for the COVID-19 vaccine.

6. Does the limited supply of vaccines a factor you have considered for your

willingness to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 16 50 50 50

No 16 50 50 100

Total: 32 100 100

Table 9.6: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

 Figure 8.6: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the sixth question, "Does the limited supply of vaccines a factor you

have considered for your willingness to get vaccinated?", 16 out of 32 answered Yes

(50%) on the other hand, 16 out of 32 answered No (50%) as presented in Table 9.6.

This is a COVID-19 vaccine specific factor the represents the reactance theory in

action (Brehm, 1966). The possibility of not getting the vaccine because of its limited

supply elicits reactance from the respondents prompting them to consider getting

vaccinated. An equal percentage of “Yes” and “No” answers still indicate that this is

that factor affects to the demand for the COVID-19 vaccine.

7. Have you seen articles, news, and advertisements that show positive
portrayal of vaccines and did this make you willing to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 23 72 72 72

No 9 28 28 100

Total: 32 100 100

Table 9.7: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

 Have you s een ar ti cles , news , and
adverti sem ents that s how positi ve
por tr ayal of vaccines and did this
m ak e you willing to get vaccinated?

Have you seen articles, news, and advertisements that show positive portrayal of vaccines and did this make
you willing to get vaccinated?
No 28%

Yes 72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Figure 8.7: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the last question as presented in Table 9.7, "Have you seen articles,

news, and advertisements that show positive portrayal of vaccines and did this make

you willing to get vaccinated?", 23 out of 32 answered “Yes” (72%) on the other

hand, 9 out of 32 answered “No” (28%).This is a factor that recognized the influence

of media and communications, when it comes to attitude of the population and by

extension the sample. Positive vaccines sentiments as spread through media could

influence the perceptions of respondents. A higher percentage of “Yes” in comparison

with “No” answers indicate that this is that factor affects to vaccine acceptance of the

respondents.

E. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO VACCINE HESITANCY

Negative perceptions and vaccine hesitancy is supplemented by fueled by

certain factors. Table 10 presents these factors and would be categorized in 5

categories: Influence of Media and Communication, Historical Influences, Contextual

and Socio-demographic Factors, Personal Factors, and COVID-19 Vaccine-Specific

Factors, and COVID-19 Disease Specific Factors. Results tallied an overall mean of

1.60 (σ = 0.46), which can be described as “Yes”. The result means that the factors
presented in the data gathering procedure are factors that affect the perceptions of the

respondents leading them to become hesitant towards vaccination.

Standard
Vaccine Demand Factors Mean Deviation DR
(σ)
1. Do you have a chronic illness (asthma,
heart disease, diabetes, etc) that prevents 1.67 0.49 Yes
you from getting vaccinated?
2. Do you believe that vaccines are not
effective against the COVID-19 virus so 1.72 0.46 Yes
you are hesitant to get vaccinated?
3. Do you prefer a certain brand of
vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, etc)
that is not available that prevents you 1.56 0.51 Yes
from getting vaccinated?

4. Have you seen articles, news, and

advertisements that show negative
1.50 0.26 Yes/No
effects of vaccines that made you
unwilling to get vaccinated?
5. Does the previous DengVaxia scandal
1.44 0.51 No
made you unwilling to get vaccinated?
6. Do the reported deaths of those that
got vaccinated seen on the news 1.61 0.50 Yes
discourage you from getting vaccinated?
7. Are the people around you (family
and friends) unwilling to get vaccinated, 1.72 0.46 Yes
which makes you unwilling as well?
Total: 1.60 0.46
Yes

Table 10: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

1. Do you have a chronic illness (asthma, heart disease, diabetes, etc) that

prevents you from getting vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 12 67 67 67

No 6 33 33 100

Total: 18 100 100

Table 11.1: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

 Do you have a chronic illnes s (asthma,
heart dis eas e, diabetes, etc) that pre -
vents you from getti ng vaccinated?
Do you have a chronic illness (asthma, heart disease, diabetes, etc) that prevents you from getting vaccinated?

No 33%

Yes 67%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 9.1: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the first question as presented in Table 11.1, "Do you have a chronic

illness (asthma, heart disease, diabetes, etc) that prevents you from getting

vaccinated?", 12 out of 18 answered “Yes” (67%) on the other hand, 6 out of 18

answered “No” (33%). This is a personal factor that accounts for the factors innate to

people that influence their compliance to the vaccine and in this case are chronic

illnesses that respondents have prior to vaccination. A higher percentage of “Yes” in

comparison with “No” answers indicate that this is that factor affects the vaccine

hesitancy of respondents.

2. Do you believe that vaccines are not effective against the COVID-19 virus so

you are hesitant to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 13 72 72 72

No 5 28 28 100

Total: 18 100 100

Table 11.2: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

 Do you believe that vaccines are not ef -
fecti ve against the COVID-19 virus so
you are hesitant to get vaccinated?
Do you believe that vaccines are not effective against the COVID-19 virus so you are hesitant to get vaccinated?

No 28%

Yes 72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Figure 9.2: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the second question, "Do you believe that vaccines are not effective

against the COVID-19 virus so you are hesitant to get vaccinated?", 13 out of 18

answered “Yes” (72%) on the other hand, 5 out of 18 answered “No” (28%) as

presented in Table 11.2. This is a COVID-19 vaccine specific factor wherein

respondents have doubts regarding the efficacy of the vaccines leading to hesitance.

A higher percentage of “Yes” responses indicate that contributes to the vaccine

hesitancy of the respondents.

3. Do you prefer a certain brand of vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, etc) that
is not available that prevents you from getting vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 10 56 56 56

No 8 44 44 100

Total: 18 100 100

Table 11.3: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

 Do you prefer a certain brand of vac -
cine (Pfi zer, Moderna, Sinovac, etc)
that is not available that prevents you
from getti ng vaccinated?
Do you prefer a certain brand of vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, etc) that is not available that prevents you from get -
ting vaccinated?

No 44%

Yes 56%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 9.3: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the third question presented in Table 11.3, "Do you prefer a certain

brand of vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, etc) that is not available that prevents

you from getting vaccinated?" 10 out of 18 answered “Yes” (56%) on the other hand,

8 out of 18 answered “No” (44%). This is a COVID-19 vaccine specific factor

wherein respondents have doubts regarding the efficacy of the vaccines leading to

hesitance. A higher percentage of “Yes” responses indicate that this factor is

something respondents consider on why they are hesitant.

4. Have you seen articles, news, and advertisements that show negative effects

of vaccines that made you unwilling to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 9 50 50 50

No 9 50 50 100

Total: 18 100 100

Table 11.4: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

 Ha ve you s een ar ti cles , news , a nd ad -
ver ti s em ents that s how negati ve eff ects
of vaccines tha t m ade you unwilling to
get va ccinated?

Have you seen articles, news, and advertisements that show negative effects of vaccines that made you
unwilling to get vaccinated?

No 50%

Yes 50%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Figure 9.4: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the fourth question presented in Table 11.4, "Have you seen articles,

news, and advertisements that show negative effects of vaccines that made you

unwilling to get vaccinated?", 9 out of 18 answered “Yes” (50%) on the other hand, 9

out of 18 answered “No” (50%). This is a factor on the influence of media and

communications when it comes to shaping public perception. Negative sentiments

with regards to vaccines actively displayed on social media sway the public and make

them hesitant towards vaccination. An equal percentage of “Yes” and “No” responses

indicate that this factor is still something respondents consider during their decision-

making process.

5. Does the previous DengVaxia scandal made you unwilling to get vaccinated?

Respons Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Frequency Percent (%)
e (%) (%)

Yes 8 44 44 44

No 10 56 56 100

Total: 18 100 100

Table 11.5: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

 Does the previous DengVaxia scandal
made you unwilling to get vaccinated?
Does the previous DengVaxia scandal made you unwilling to get vaccinated?

No 56%

Yes 44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 9.5: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the fifth question, "Does the previous DengVaxia scandal made you

unwilling to get vaccinated?", 8 out of 10 answered “Yes” (44%) on the other hand,

10 out of 18 answered “No” (56%).This is a factor on historical influences wherein

past occurrences with regards to vaccination lead to the thinking of “what if it

happens again”, negatively leading to vaccine hesitance. The infamous DengVaxia

scandal that occurred in the Philippines is an example of vaccination incident that

occurred in the past that might influence the decisions of the respondents hence its

inclusion in the study. A lower percentage of “Yes” answers and a higher number of

“No” responses indicate that this factor does not influence the decision-making skills

of the respondents but it still exists.

6. Do the reported deaths of those that got vaccinated seen on the news discourage you

from getting vaccinated?

Valid
Percent Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent
(%) Percent (%)
(%)

Yes 11 61 61 61
 No 7 39 39 100

Total: 18 100 100

Table 11.6: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

Do the r epor ted dea th s of thos e th at

got va ccinated s een on the n ew s dis -
cour age you f r om getti n g vaccin ated?

Do the reported deaths of those that got vaccinated seen on the news discourage you from getting vac-
cinated?
No 39%

Yes 61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 9.6: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the sixth question as presented in Table 11.6, "Do the reported deaths of

those that got vaccinated seen on the news discourage you from getting vaccinated?",

11 out of 18 answered “Yes” (61%) on the other hand, 7 out of 18 answered “No”

(39%). This is a COVID-19 vaccine specific factor wherein the possibility of death

when getting vaccinated is instilled into the minds of the respondents causing

hesitancy. A higher percentage of “Yes” responses indicate that this factor plays a

role in the existing vaccine hesitancy in the country.

7. Are the people around you (family and friends) unwilling to get vaccinated, which

makes you unwilling as well?

Valid
Percent Cumulative
Response Frequency Percent
(%) Percent (%)
(%)

Yes 13 72 28 72
 No 5 72 28 100

Total: 18 100 100

Table 11.7: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy

A r e th e p e o p l e a r o u n d yo u (f a m i l y a n d
f r i en d s ) u n w i l l i n g to ge t va c ci n a ted ,
w h i c h m a k e s yo u u n w i l l i n g a s w el l ?
Are the people around you (family and friends) unwilling to get vaccinated, which makes you unwilling as well?

No 28%

Yes 72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Figure 9.7: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand

For the last question as presented in Table 11.7, "Are the people around you

(family and friends) unwilling to get vaccinated, which makes you unwilling as

well?", 13 out of 18 answered Yes (72%) on the other hand, 5 out of 18 answered No

(28%). This is a personal factor characterized by the social relations of the respondent

that influence and shapes his decision. This is especially true for respondents between

ages 12-17 years old who can’t get vaccinated without the consent of their legal

guardians, if their guardian is part of the vaccine hesitancy so are they. A higher

percentage of “Yes” responses indicate that this factor does contribute to hesitancy in

vaccination.

F. DETERMINANT WITH THE MOST PROMINENT EFFECT TO

VACCINE DEMAND

Questions YES NO
Do you believe that vaccines are effective 28 students 4 students
that’s why you are willing to get (88%) (12%)
vaccinated?
 Do you wish to travel elsewhere that’s 19 students 13 students
why you are willing to get vaccinated? (60%) (40%)

Are the negative emotions brought by the 21 students 11 students

lockdown (fear, anger, and anxiety) a (66%) (34%)
factor you considered for your
willingness to get vaccinated?
Do you believe that the pandemic would 23 students 9 students
end once everyone gets vaccinated that’s (72%) (28%)
why you are willing to get vaccinated?

Is the fear of contracting the COVID-19 24 students 8 students

virus a factor you have considered for (76%) (24%)
your willingness to get vaccinated?
Does the limited supply of vaccines a 16 students 16 students
factor you have considered for your (50%) (50%)
willingness to get vaccinated?
Have you seen articles, news, and 23 students 9 students
advertisements that show positive (72%) (28%)
portrayal of vaccines and did this make
you willing to get vaccinated?
Table 12: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Demand
 dETERMINANTS FOR VACCINE DEMAND
Do you believe that vaccines are effective that’s why you are willing to get vaccinated?
Do you wish to travel elsewhere that’s why you are willing to get vaccinated?
Are the negative emotions brought by the lockdown (fear, anger, and anxiety) a factor you considered
for your willingness to get vaccinated?
Do you believe that the pandemic would end once everyone gets vaccinated that’s why you are willing
100% to get vaccinated?
Is the fear of contracting the COVID-19 virus a factor you have considered for your willingness to get
90% 88%
vaccinated?
Does the limited supply of vaccines a factor you have considered for your willingness to get vaccinated?
80% 76%
72% 72%
70% 66%
60%
60%
50% 50%
50%
40%
40% 34%
30% 28% 28%
24%
20%
12%
10%
0%
YES NO

Figure 10: Graphical illustration for the Comparison of Determinants of Vaccine

Demand

The factor that had the most effect to the demand is the effectiveness of the

vaccine, wherein 28 people answered it (88%), followed by the factor of fear of

contracting the COVID-19 virus, wherein 24 people answered it (76%). Following

that is the influence of positive vaccine sentiment in the form of article or news,

which was answered by 23 respondents (72%). The next factor has the same

percentage or count as the previous one, with 23 respondents answering it (72%), and

it is the belief that the pandemic would end once everyone gets vaccinated. Following

that was the aspect of negative emotions caused by the lockdown, to which 21
responded (66%). Second to last is the factor of being able to travel if you get

vaccinated, a personal factor, wherein 19 people have answered this (60%). Finally,

the factor that had the least amount of influence to the vaccine demand is the limited

supply of vaccines, which was responded by 16 people at (50%).

G. DETERMINANT WITH THE MOST PROMINENT EFFECT TO VACCINE

HESITANCY

Questions YES NO
Do you have a chronic illness (asthma, 12 students 6 students
heart disease, diabetes, etc) that prevents (67%) (33%)
you from getting vaccinated?
Do you believe that vaccines are not 13 students 5 students
effective against the COVID-19 virus so (72%) (28%)
you are hesitant to get vaccinated?

Do you prefer a certain brand of vaccine 10 students 8 students

(Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, etc) that is not (56%) (44%)
available that prevents you from getting
vaccinated?
Have you seen articles, news, and 9 students 9 students
advertisements that show negative effects (50%) (50%)
of vaccines that made you unwilling to
get vaccinated?
Does the previous DengVaxia scandal 8 students 10 students
made you unwilling to get vaccinated? (44%) (56%)

Do the reported deaths of those that got 11 students 7 students

vaccinated seen on the news discourage (61%) (39%)
you from getting vaccinated?
Are the people around you (family and 13 students 5 students
friends) unwilling to get vaccinated, (72%) (28%)
which makes you unwilling as well?
Table 13: Factors Contributing to Vaccine Hesitancy
 dETERMINANTS ON vACCINE hESITANCY
Arethe
Have
Does
Do you
theyou
thereported
have
believe
prefer
people
previous
seena achronic
articles,
that
around
certain
deaths
DengVaxia
vaccines
illness
you
news,
brand
of those
(family
are
(asthma,
scandal
ofandvaccine
that
notadvertisements
andeffective
got
made
heart
friends)
(Pfizer,
vaccinated
you
disease,
against
unwilling
Moderna,
unwilling
thatseen
diabetes,
theshow
toCOVID-19
ontoSinovac,
get
get
the
negative
etc)
vaccinated,
vaccinated?
news
etc)
that
viruseffects
discourage
that
prevents
sowhich
you
isofnotare
vaccines
you
makes
available
hesitant
fromyou
thatgetting
that
tounwilling
made
getprevents
vaccinated?
youasunwilling
you
well?fromtogetget-
ting vaccinated?
vaccinated?
80%

70%

60%

50%

40%
72% 72%
67%
30% 61%
56% 56%
50% 50%
20% 44% 44%
39%
33%
28% 28%
10%

0%
YES NO

Figure 11: Graphical illustration for the Comparison of Determinants of Vaccine

Demand

The graph above displays the factors that influence people's hesitancy to get

vaccinated. The families that are unwilling to have their children vaccinated, as well

as the idea that vaccinations are ineffective, now have the biggest influence on

hesitancy, with 13 people responding to both of these factors (72%). The next factor

is a personal factor of having an existing chronic illness prior to vaccination, of which

12 people agreed on at (67%). The factor of recorded deaths of individuals who had

been vaccinated was next, on which 11 participants agreed (61%). Following that are
the factors of the DengVaxia incident and brand preference, both of which have the

same response, with 10 respondents who answered it at (56%). Finally, the factor that

influenced hesitancy the least, which has received the fewest responses is articles,

news, and advertisements showing the negative effects of vaccines, to which 9

persons responded (50%).