International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Article (Mis)Information, Fears and Preventative Health Behaviours Related to COVID-19 Carmina Castellano-Tejedor 1,2,3, * , María Torres-Serrano 4 and Andrés Cencerrado 1 1 Psynaptic, Psicología y Servicios Científicos y Tecnológicos S.L.P., 08192 Barcelona, Spain; acence@gmail.com 2 GIES Research Group, Basic Psychology Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08192 Barcelona, Spain 3 Research Group on Aging, Frailty and Care Transitions in Barcelona, Parc Sanitari Pere Virgili & Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), 08023 Barcelona, Spain 4 Faculty of Psychology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, 08192 Barcelona, Spain; torresserranomaria23@gmail.com * Correspondence: ninacastej@yahoo.es Abstract: Social and mass media platforms (SMM) are essential tools for keeping people informed about health-promoting practices. However, the potential to spread misinformation or false rumors exists. These might influence preventive health behaviours and incite anxiety and/or fear among the population. A sample of 300 adults participated in a survey to understand information needs, fears and preventive health behaviours related to COVID-19 while analyzing differences in COVID-19 acceptance rates. Descriptive-correlational, between-group comparisons and regression analyses were applied. Most of the sample revealed a willingness to accept COVID-19 vaccines (65.4% vs. 34.5%) and was prone to use and trust different SMM without experiencing significant obstacles in managing COVID-19-related information except for the need to ration it from time to time (χ2 (2,  N = 298) = 6.654, p = 0.036). Preventive behaviours/measures carried out were similar among the  people resistant, hesitant or willing to get vaccinated for COVID-19. However, higher self-efficacy Citation: Castellano-Tejedor, C.; Torres-Serrano, M.; Cencerrado, A. was observed in resistant vaccine individuals (F(2) = 3.163, p = 0.044). Psychological impact (need for (Mis)Information, Fears and psychological support due to COVID-19 situation) in accepting (F(5, 189) = 17.539, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.317) Preventative Health Behaviours and hesitant individuals (F(5, 77) = 17.080, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.526) was explained by female gender, Related to COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. younger age, threat susceptibility and differential characteristics in terms of psychological symptoms Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539. experienced and SMM trust. No explanatory model was obtained for the resistant individuals. SMM https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph could be effective tools to promote COVID-19 health preventive behaviours. However, psychographic 19084539 characteristics might modulate information-seeking and management as well as self-perceived threat Academic Editor: Carl Latkin susceptibility and severity. All these factors must be accurately considered when designing different health preventive campaigns for the general public. Received: 12 February 2022 Accepted: 6 April 2022 Keywords: COVID-19; pandemic; information needs; misinformation; preventative behaviours; Published: 9 April 2022 online survey; cross-sectional survey; population mental health; anxiety; fear Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affil- iations. 1. Introduction So far, millions of lives have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. How- ever, scientific knowledge on how to effectively respond to COVID-19 outbreaks has also Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. increased considerably in a very short time, and several research teams have worked Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. intensively to develop COVID-19 vaccines. As a result, as of 20 July 2021, a total of This article is an open access article 3,568,861,733 vaccine doses have been administered worldwide (WHO, 2021). Considering distributed under the terms and that the world population is approximately 7.7 million people [2], further reducing the conditions of the Creative Commons COVID-19 burden relies on non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs). These COVID-19- Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// related NPIs include lockdown policies, such as social restrictions and distancing, bans on creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ nonessential travel, and the temporary closure of almost all businesses, facilities, and places 4.0/). of religious and other public gatherings, including funerals. According to epidemiological Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084539 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 2 of 17 data in each country and region, some of these measures are still ongoing or are activated and deactivated to varying degrees. Other health regulations include quarantining symp- tomatic persons, tracking and following exposed individuals and health communication campaigns to increase the population’s awareness and acceptance of scientific knowledge related to COVID-19 spread and control. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, social and mass media (onwards SMM) have played a major role in acting as a very accessible information and social support source during the crisis [3]. In fact, a lot of professional and personal modern-day interactions are already conducted via phones and computers [4,5]. Thus, it is not a surprise that amid an unprecedented crisis for most of the population, the use of SMM might also rise, and people may consider it critically important for staying connected and updated. Also, government agencies and health institutions managing the crisis have used SMM to provide and dispense information, guidelines and regulations to the population [6]. Despite the many benefits of SMM, achieving greater reach and dispelling population inequalities regarding access to information, several downfalls must be considered. First of all, there is a potential risk of using SMM to spread misinformation and false rumors [3,7] that might incite fear, as it did with Ebola [8] and to spur erroneous behavioral action [9]. In this sense, the World Health Organization (WHO) has opened a specific website to combat these COVID-related myths [10] and this overabundance of information (also known as an infodemic, as the WHO has precisely coined [11–13]). Also, many people might overly rely upon SMM in an attempt to regain self-perceived control and try to manage their anxiety [14]. Health information-seeking behaviour is most commonly described in the literature as an active or purposeful behaviour undertaken by an individual to find information about health [15,16]. The concept has been frequently studied in the context of chronic diseases. However, limited evidence exists in the context of a pandemic [17,18], and this behaviour may influence the self-protection measures that individuals take, and that, in turn, might modulate the anxious or fearful responses that they present to the stressor that motivates the search for information and support. In light of the potential for SMM to be used to self-regulate, express, and quell anxiety and fear (mainly through social support and information seeking as a coping mechanism), and even incite them (especially related to false information), it is important to examine the interaction between SMM use and psychological impact during times of crisis, as an effect that might influence vaccine acceptance among other health protective/preventive measures. In this study, we applied a combination of the Health Belief Model (HBM) [19] and Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) [19,20] to examine potential factors for explaining COVID-19-related psychological impact among respondents. The HBM posits that per- ceived susceptibility, severity, and benefits are major contributors enabling individuals to take specific health behavioral actions. Moreover, the PMT posits that individuals’ health-related behaviours are triggered by their psychological distress (i.e., anxiety and fear). Therefore, the HBM and PMT theoretical frameworks might help understand what cues to action significantly influence protection/motivation behaviours (specifically, vacci- nation determination) and perceived self-efficacy concerning COVID contagion prevention. Apart from the HBM and PMT, the literature suggests the importance of obtaining ac- curate COVID-19 information from trusted sources. Indeed, misinformation concerning COVID-19 is associated with a greater fear of the disease [21,22] and fewer or less efficient protective behaviours [23]. Figure 1a displays the theoretical framework of the study, and Figure 1b shows the relationship between the different factors explored in this study and the specific research questions (RQ) and hypothesis (H) analyzed in this correlational research: Int.J.J.Environ. Int. Environ.Res. Res.Public PublicHealth Health2022, 2022,19, 19,4539 x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of of 17 18 (a) (b) Figure 1. (a) Theoretical framework of the study combining HBM and PMT fundamentals [19,20] adapted for this research. Figure 1. (a) Theoretical framework of the study combining HBM and PMT fundamentals [19,20] (b) Framework map of the research questions (RQ) and hypothesis (H) of the study. adapted for this research. (b) Framework map of the research questions (RQ) and hypothesis (H) of the study. RQ1: How do different profiles of individuals concerning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination RQ1: How (accepting, do different profiles resistant, hesitant) of individuals behaveattitudes concerning in terms towards of SMM COVID-19 use to seek trustworthy information? And what type of obstacles related to COVID-19 infor- vaccination (accepting, resistant, hesitant) behave in terms of SMM use to seek trustworthy mation/management experience each of these profiles? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 4 of 17 information? And what type of obstacles related to COVID-19 information/management experience each of these profiles? RQ2: How do different profiles of individuals concerning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination (accepting, resistant, hesitant) behave in terms of self-efficacy and preventive behaviours carried out? RQ3: How perceived threat susceptibility and severity relate to psychological impact among different profiles of individuals concerning attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination (accepting, resistant, hesitant)? RQ4: How does psychological impact relate to SMM use/experience, self-efficacy and preventive behaviours carried out and for the different demographics and psychographic characteristics of the sample for each profile of individuals (accepting, resistant, hesitant)? It is hypothesized that (H1) individuals accepting a COVID-19 vaccine will be those searching for greater amounts of information or having a greater need for information, (H2) those showing higher levels of trust in most of consulted SMM sources, (H3) those expressing fewer obstacles accessing and managing information, and also (H4) those carrying out a higher amount of preventive behaviours with medium-to-high self-efficacy. Similarly, and independently of the profile, (H5) higher threat susceptibility and severity will be related to the higher psychological impact. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Design and Recruitment A web-based cross-sectional survey was executed recruiting a non-probabilistic sam- pling (convenience sampling) of community-based adults that utilize Spanish National Health Insurance. Inclusion criteria required being ≥18 years old and the only exclusion criteria was not understanding Spanish well enough to complete the survey. These criteria were stated in the informed consent presented before the survey. Additionally, question- naires submitted below the cut-off of 4 min were excluded from the survey to ensure the reliability of the answers and to eliminate possible randomly completed surveys without reading and/or understanding the items. 2.2. Data Collection and Procedures A 48-item multifactorial survey entitled “Personal Attitudes Towards the COVID- 19 Pandemic” was conducted from 21 January to 21 March 2021 in the context of strict COVID-related gathering and mobility restrictions (via Kwik surveys platform, https: //kwiksurveys.com), with three COVID-19 vaccines available on a voluntarily but highly recommended basis to all population in the country. The length of the survey was short enough not to take more than 10 min to ensure a high completion rate. This survey was distributed via mailing lists and social media (WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter) from the authors’ accounts, and participants were encouraged to re-share it with their contacts and relatives. Potential participants, pre-accessing the survey, were informed about the research objectives and usefulness of results. The main ethical and privacy details were outlined as well, and permission to use the data for scientific purposes was requested before entering the survey. Participants could withdraw at any time before submitting their final responses. The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) was employed (see Supplementary Material). 2.3. Outcomes and Covariates 2.3.1. Primary Outcome Variable The main outcome variable for this study was psychological impact. This variable was computed by analyzing participants’ responses to items 35 and 36 of the survey. Item 35 explored reasons for receiving psychological support among those respondents revealing that they were currently in treatment. Response options included: previously existing problems, the COVID-19 situation, both options, other reasons, and prefer not to disclose. Item 36 of the survey aimed to specifically evaluate the need for psychological support Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 5 of 17 shortly due to COVID-19 health crises by answering if they will seek specific support for this matter. Scores ranged from 0 (not likely at all) to 10 (extremely likely). Two profiles (high psychological impact vs. medium-to-low psychological impact) were set up combining results from these two variables with those scoring ≥7 on item 36, and also those already receiving psychological support for COVID or both, due to pre-existing problems and the COVID-19 situation. 2.3.2. Other Variables Socio-demographic, medical and psychographic characteristics: participants’ socio- demographic data includes gender, age, residence area, nationality, cohabitation, em- ployment status and educational level. Medical and psychographic characteristics were collected, including: suffering from a chronic disease, psychological symptoms, and if they have experienced losing a loved one due to COVID-19. COVID-19-related data: participants indicated whether they have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the type of diagnostic test, the need for quarantine and/or hospital admission (including ICU). Participants were also asked about the degree to which they considered vaccines safe and effective (numeric scale ranging from 0–10) and the perception as the possible solution to end the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 (yes vs. no item). COVID-19 preventive measures/behaviours and protection/motivation: Individual and voluntary preventative measures/behaviours were screened collecting the use of FPP2 masks, other masks, use of anti-COVID plastic face shields, transparent shields or other physical barriers on the desk/counter, hand hygiene with hydro-alcoholic gel, surface hygiene with hydro-alcoholic gel, wearing gloves, social distancing (1.5–2 m), restriction of departures at certain hours (curfew), limiting distance from home, limiting social gatherings to small groups, decreasing the frequency of attending to closed places, decreasing the frequency of attending crowded places for leisure and other actions. In addition, difficulties carrying out the different preventive measures/behaviours were also surveyed. Compliance with the preventive measures (perceived response self-efficacy) was assessed through a self-reported 5-point numeric scale where 1 meant lousy and 5 excellent (item 5: If you had to qualify your performance about the implementation of the different contagion prevention measures (own, recommended and/or imposed), what would you score?). Item 15 assessed personal predisposition and readiness of being vaccinated (protec- tion/motivation) for COVID. This item read as follows: Are you willing to be vaccinated for COVID-19? For the purposes of this research, the sample was classified according to the following response options: (1) Accepting (Yes), (2) Hesitant (Probably yes; I haven’t decided yet; Probably not; Depending on the vaccine), (3) Resistant (No, Just if I’m obliged); Respondents stating Do not know/Do not answer (1%, n = 3), and I have been already vaccinated (16%, n = 48) were not included in these comparisons. Perceived threat susceptibility and severity: The perceived threat was assessed through a 10-point Likert-scale with higher scores indicating greater threat susceptibility (item 2: Currently, what is the degree of interference of the situation created by COVID-19 in your day-to- day life?). The perceived severity was assessed by means of a 10-point Likert-scale with a higher score indicating greater threat severity (item 3: Comparatively with the situations you have experienced throughout your life, what personal severity does this COVID-19 pandemic situation have for you?). Fear of COVID–19 Scale (FCV-19S): The FCV–19S is a seven-item scale assessing the fear of COVID–19 using seven items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with total scores ranging from 7 (minimum fear) to 35 (maximum fear) [24]. The present study demonstrated a reliability of α = 0.85. Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD-7): The GAD-7 is a seven-item self-report scale used in the medical and community settings to screen the severity of generalized anxiety [25]. Respondents are asked to answer how often they have been bothered by various anxiety symptoms over the last two weeks on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 6 of 17 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day), with a total score ranging from 0 (minimum anxiety) to 21 (maximum anxiety). The present study showed the reliability of α = 0.90. Social and Mass Media (SMM) Use: SMM use was measured exploring (1) the need for COVID-19 information (item 12: From the beginning of the pandemic to the present, what kind of information about COVID-19 have you actively sought via SMM? Point out everything that applies), (2) Sources of information and reliability (item 11: What credibility do the different sources of SMM have for you when looking for COVID-19 related information (i.e., epidemiological data of infected, deceased, admissions, preventive measures, vaccine, etc.)? If you don’t use them regularly, please indicate the self-perceived credibility you judge they have), and (3) Obstacles to COVID-19 information seeking (item 14: What have been the main obstacles you have encountered in searching for or accessing information related to COVID-19? Point out everything that applies). 2.4. Ethics Research ethics procedures of this study complied with European and national leg- islation (e.g., the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals concerning the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data) and data were treated with confidentiality, equality, and justice, respecting the Helsinki and the American Psychological Association (APA) ethical principles of research conduct. Codifica- tion procedures were employed to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of information. All participants were informed about study purposes, and direct informed consent was requested from all respondents before starting the survey and sending their responses. No economic incentives were offered for taking part in the survey. Participants who required feedback from the survey were invited to write down their email addresses and received information or specific helpful suggestions. 2.5. Statistical Analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated for all primary and secondary outcome variables using measures of central tendency (mean, standard deviation, maximum/minimum range for continuous variables; frequencies and total percentages for categorical variables). For bivariate analysis, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether parametric or non-parametric tests were indicated. Bivariate comparisons were performed through either Student’s t-test and one-way ANOVA for variables with more than two categories or levels, the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables or the Chi-square test (and Fisher’s exact test when n < 5) for dichotomous variables. The correlation of two variables was compared using Pearson correlation two-sided, indicating significant correlations ≥0.3. The primary outcome variable describing the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was computed using scores on items 35 and 36 of the survey to assess if participants were currently in psychological treatment due to COVID-19 or if they believe they will need psychological treatment support in the near future due to the pandemic situation. Multiple regression analyses (stepwise) were employed to analyze the strength of the relationship between the primary outcome (as a continuous variable, item 36) and several predictor variables, as well as the importance of each of the predictors to the relationship (RQ5). The level of statistical significance was 5% (p ≤ 0.05). Bonferroni post hoc analyses were performed in all cases, and 95% confidence intervals were reported. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSSv25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). 3. Results 3.1. Demographic Information and Response Rate After excluding ineligible respondents (i.e., age below <18 years old or completing the survey in a very short time < 4 min), we finally collected 300 valid questionnaires (valid response rate was 93.45%) from adult respondents from different Spanish provinces (Barcelona 65.33%, n = 196). The majority of the sample lived in the region of Catalonia, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 7 of 17 with just a few cases being abroad (3%, n = 9) at the moment of the study. Sociodemo- graphic characteristics are comprehensively presented in Table 1. Most respondents were women (75.7%, n = 227) with a mean age of 40.11 ± 12.34 years old (range 18–74), mar- ried or cohabiting with a partner (64%, n = 192) and in charge of vulnerable individuals (21.7%, n = 65) such as children, elderly and people with some physical and/or cognitive functional limitations. Table 1. Participants’ demographics (N = 300). Variables n (%) Gender (Female) 227 (75.7%) Country of origin Spain 291 (97%) Other a 9 (3%) Cohabiting Alone 32 (10.7%) Couple/Partner 192 (64%) Mother 57 (19%) Father 40 (13.3%) Children 118 (39.3%) Siblings 26 (8.7%) Grandmother 3 (1%) Grandfather 1 (0.3%) Mother-in-law 3 (1%) Father-in-law 1 (0.3%) Caregiver (formal/informal) 2 (0.7%) Pet(s) 55 (18.3%) Flat mates 16 (5.3%) Vulnerable individuals at charge (Yes) b 65 (21.8%) COVID-19 diagnosis (Yes) 43 (14.3%) Chronic disease (Yes) 55 (18.3%) Loss of a relative/family member due to COVID-19 (Yes) 51 (17%) Age 18–35 114 (38%) 36–59 160 (53.3%) >60 26 (8.7%) Occupation (Healthcare professionals vs. others) 131 (43.7%) Education Primary school 9 (3%) Secondary school 21 (7%) Higher education 52 (17.3%) University degree 178 (59.3%) PhD 25 (8.3%) Other degrees 15 (5%) Employment situation Working 243 (81%) Temporary Labor Force adjustment 5 (7.8%) Dismissal 2 (3.1%) Unemployed 9 (14.1%) Self-perceived socio-economic status Low 52 (17.3%) Medium 230 (76.7%) High 18 (6%) Attitude towards COVID-19 vaccination Accepting 195 (65.4%) Resistant 20 (6.7%) Hesitant 83 (27.8%) aThis includes: UK (n = 2), Colombia (n = 2), Germany (n = 1), Norway (n = 1), Malaysia (n = 1), Indonesia (n = 1), Mexico (n = 1). b This includes elderly and young children (under 18 years old). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 8 of 17 The survey was closed after two months and a total of 300 completed responses had been attained. This was accepted by the researchers to run the statistical tests confidently during this challenging and sensitive time of the COVID-19 outbreak. An online survey was selected as the lockdown and enrollment of participants precluded in-person surveys and random selection. 3.2. Results Concerning RQ1: How Do Different Profiles of Individuals Concerning Attitudes towards COVID-19 Vaccination (Accepting, Resistant, Hesitant) Behave in Terms of SMM Use to Seek Trustworthy Information? And What Type of Obstacles Related to COVID-19 Information/Management Experience Each of These Profiles? Table 2 displays different information needs referred by each profile of individuals regarding their willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Table 2. Need for COVID information (N = 300) a,b . Accepting (n = 195) Resistant (n = 20) Hesitant (n = 83) Variables (yes Option Displayed) n (%) n (%) n (%) General information 167 (56%) 16 (5.4%) 70 (23.5%) Statistical data * 126 (42.3%) 9 (3%) 43 (14.4%) How to diagnose/identify positive cases 118 (39.6%) 11 (3.7%) 50 (16.8%) Preventive/protective behaviors/measures 128 (43%) 9 (3%) 55 (18.5%) COVID-19 treatment(s) 86 (28.9%) 8 (2.7%) 27 (9.1%) Regulations/restrictions 165 (55.4%) 13 (4.4%) 68 (22.8%) Quarantine/Confinement physical/psychosocial 99 (33.2%) 5 (1.7%) 35 (11.7%) recommendations * Mental health recommendations 66 (22.1%) 3 (1%) 23 (7.7%) Positive family functioning/environment 34 (11.4%) 3 (1%) 7 (2.3%) recommendations Remote work and family life conciliation 25 (8.4%) 3 (1%) 9 (3%) recommendations Other information searched: - Healthy lifestyles 1 (0.3%) 0 0 - COVID-19 courses/training 1 (0.3%) 0 0 - COVID-19 treatments for secondary effects 2 (0.6%) 0 0 - COVID-19 and pregnancy 1 (0.3%) 0 0 - COVID in the world 1 (0.3%) 0 1 (0.3%) - COVID-19 vaccines 1 (0.3%) 0 0 - COVID-19 psychological effects 0 0 1 (0.3%) - COVID-19 restrictions for funerals 1 (0.3%) 0 0 - COVID-19 data for educative system 1 (0.3%) 0 0 aTwo missing values; b Need for COVID-19 information was surveyed by means of item 12: From the beginning of the pandemic to the present, what kind of information about COVID-19 have you actively sought via SMM? Point out everything that applies); * p < 0.05 according to a chi-square test. People willing to accept COVID-19 vaccines search for more information (F(2) = 3.691, p = 0.026) concerning COVID-19 (M ± SD = 5.20 ± 2.32, 0–10, 95%CI [4.87, 5.53]) compared to the rest of the studied sample; both resistant (M ± SD = 4 ± 2.13, 1–10, 95%CI [3, 4.99]) and hesitant individuals (M ± SD = 4.66 ± 2.05, 1–9, 95%CI [4.21, 5.11]). However, these differences do not reach statistical significance in post hoc tests (H1). As it can be observed, individuals willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine were more prone to search for statistics related to COVID-19 spread, contagion index and mortal- ity or other COVID-related epidemiological data compared to those hesitant or resistant to getting vaccinated (χ2 (2, N = 298) = 5.905, p = 0.005). Similarly, a higher tendency to search for information related to quarantine/confinement physical/psychosocial rec- ommendations was observed among accepting individuals than the other subsamples Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 9 of 17 (χ2 (2, N = 298) = 5.766, p = 0.056). Table 3 shows SMM use and experience for each sub- sample of studied individuals. Table 3. Sources of Information and Reliability (N = 300) a . Accepting (n = 195) Resistant (n = 20) Hesitant (n = 83) Variables M ± SD, Range M ± SD, Range M ± SD, Range TV * 4.03 ± 1.29, 1–7 2.65 ± 1.35, 1–5 3.51 ± 1.30, 1–7 Radio * 3.90 ± 1.24, 1–7 2.75 ± 1.25, 1–5 3.54 ± 1.23, 1–6 Written press * 3.81 ± 1.23, 1–6 2.55 ± 1.23, 1–4 3.39 ± 1.39, 1–6 Web-based press * 3.79 ± 1.30, 1–7 2.55 ± 1.47, 1–5 3.43 ± 1.39, 1–6 Twitter 2.51 ± 1.37, 1–6 2.20 ± 1.44, 1–5 2.42 ± 1.05, 1–5 Facebook 1.93 ± 1.11, 1–6 2.10 ± 1.29, 1–5 2.18 ± 1.15, 1–6 Telegram 2.11 ± 1.17, 1–6 1.90 ± 1.55, 1–6 2.20 ± 1.08, 1–6 Whatsapp 1.92 ± 1.15, 1–7 2.05 ± 1.50, 1–7 2.14 ± 1.05, 1–5 Healthcare professionals * 5.69 ± 1.10, 3–7 4.85 ± 1.53, 2–7 5.35 ± 1.23, 1–7 Scientific papers & publications * 5.81 ± 1.18, 1–7 4.95 ± 1.57, 2–7 5.48 ± 1.06, 3–7 WHO official channels * 5.24 ± 1.33, 1–7 4.10 ± 1.74, 1–7 4.71 ± 1.44, 1–7 Health Department official channels (state) * 4.72 ± 1.34, 1–7 3.30 ± 1.78, 1–7 4.20 ± 1.47, 1–7 Health Department official channels (regional)* 4.67 ± 1.36, 1–7 3.60 ± 1.60, 1–7 4.34 ± 1.36, 2–7 Friends & acquaintances 3.04 ± 1.22, 1–7 2.50 ± 1.43, 1–5 3.01 ± 1.43, 1–7 The Internet (in general) 2.59 ± 1.09, 1–5 2.55 ± 1.60, 1–6 2.72 ± 1.13, 1–5 Specialized web pages * 4.41 ± 1.34, 1–7 3.65 ± 1.46, 1–6 3.95 ± 1.30, 1–7 a Two missing values; * p < 0.05 according to one-way ANOVA tests with Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons. People willing to accept COVID-19 vaccines are more prone to use and trust informa- tion obtained via TV (F(2) = 12.932, p < 0.001), the written press (F(2) = 10.442, p < 0.001), WHO official channels (F(2) = 8.858, p < 0.001) and National Health Department official channels (F(2) = 11.347, p < 0.001) compared to those individuals hesitant or resistant to COVID-19 vaccination. Furthermore, they search for and trust more specialized COVID-19 related pages (F(2) = 5.469, p = 0.005) (H2). Similarly, accepting individuals tend to consult and trust to a higher degree infor- mation obtained from the radio (F(2) = 9.086, p < 0.001), web-based media (F(2) = 8.796, p < 0.001), healthcare professionals (F(2) = 6.214, p = 0.002), scientific papers and publica- tions (F(2) = 6.018, p = 0.003), and regional health department official channels (F(2) = 6.263, p = 0.002), compared to COVID-19 vaccine resistant individuals. Use and trust in these SMM were very similar between hesitant and resistant individuals (H2). Figure 2 displays obstacles to COVID-19 information seeking. Considering the whole sample, the most referred obstacles were contradictory information, fake news, rumours, excess and unreliable information. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of obstacles related to COVID-19 information seeking between groups. In this sense, accepting individuals en- countered an average of 3.87 ± 1.85 obstacles (0–9, 95%CI [3.61, 4.14]), resistant individuals encountered an average of 4.45 ± 1.99 obstacles (1–9, 95%CI [3.52, 5.38]), and hesitant individuals encountered an average of 4.06 ± 2.15 obstacles (0–9, 95%CI [3.59, 9.53]). How- ever, individuals willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine were more prone to avoid or ration information because they stated it might cause them distress compared to those individuals hesitant or resistant to get vaccinated (χ2 (2, N = 298) = 6.654, p = 0.036) (H3). For the whole sample, higher information-seeking behaviour was correlated with higher obstacles found when managing/searching for COVID-19-related information (r = 0.316, p < 0.001). Similarly, information-seeking behaviour was positively correlated with anxiety (r = 0.309, p < 0.001), as happened between anxiety and fear of COVID (r = 0.470, p < 0.001). Int. J.J. Environ. Environ. Res. Res. Public Public Health Health 2022, 2022, 19, 19, x4539 FOR PEER REVIEW 1010of of 18 17 Figure 2. Obstacles Obstacles to to COVID-19 COVID-19information-seeking information-seeking(N 300)a.aa.Two (N==300) a Two missing values; missing * p*18 years old) as the target age range of our non-probabilistic sample, and a high percentage of them reported middle-to-high socioeconomic status and held postgraduate or superior educational levels, 44% of them being healthcare profession- als. Future studies are suggested to include larger representative samples from wide age ranges and lower-income or academic levels to facilitate the generalizability of findings. This is especially important in light of our findings and considering potential and relevant associations related to younger age [41] and female gender [42] steadily increasing. It is important to bear in mind that the response to this research was generated mostly from females (75.7%). This might be explained by the tendency of men to be more apathetic to a survey than women, which is consistent with previous research pointing out the same related to COVID-19 surveys [32] or other types of research [31,43]. Similarly, the very low proportion of resistant individuals (6.7%) undermines the ability to draw conclusions based on profiles. Also, this sample limitation could have been the cause of not finding any regression model to identify significant risk factors to experience psychological impact among individuals resistant to COVID-19 vaccines. In the same line, due to the nature of its design, this research does not allow us to infer cause-effect relationships. Finally, SMM use and experience is a vast study field. This research has only presented a preliminary and descriptive theoretical framework to start to depict potential relationships of its role in the context of severe health crises caused by COVID-19. The experience, needs and motivation of one’s SMM use require further investigation to better comprehend health behaviour studies in such contexts. 4.2. Implications The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented mitigation efforts that disrupted the daily lives of millions. Considering that traditional survey methods are time-consuming and expensive, we need timely and proactive data sources to respond to the rapidly evolv- ing effects of health policy and the health crisis caused by COVID-19 on our population’s mental health. This research delves into describing and identifying the different profiles and attitudes of individuals related to COVID-19 vaccines. We have identified several main features of individuals willing to get vaccinated. However, those reluctant or not being sure Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 15 of 17 of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine were more similar and revealed blurry profiles concerning the studied variables. Therefore, governments, public health officials, and advocacy groups must be prepared to address the issue of vaccine hesitancy and lower vaccine acceptance rates. An infodemic or, what could be worse, misinformation regarding the benefits, the medicinal composition, and the adverse effects of vaccination spread through multiple channels could have a considerable effect in terms of increased COVID-19 vaccine hesi- tancy [13]. Thus, we believe our results enrich the theoretical paradigm of health belief and protective models and the theoretical paradigm of public health management and health communication. Besides, different profiles of at-risk individuals who suffer from highly severe psychological effects due to COVID-19 have been identified, suggesting that more attention should be paid to younger female individuals with chronic conditions and those experiencing high threat susceptibility and, therefore, higher anxiety and psychological symptoms amid the pandemic. It would be interesting to consider using qualitative tech- niques for a more in-depth analysis involving this specific at-risk population to delve into this knowledge, which would probably help strengthen the dialogue with regard to the recent literature on this subject. 5. Conclusions There is still a considerable size (34.5%) of the studied sample revealing doubts being reluctant to get vaccinated. In addition, this subsample of individuals displays a profile of low-information seeking behaviours, a tendency to find more obstacles when accessing and managing COVID-19 related information, and a certain distrust from official channels. In addition, despite carrying out similar preventive measures/behaviours to prevent COVID-19 contagion, vaccine hesitant individuals have higher self-efficacy in their performance compared to hesitant or COVID-19 vaccine accepting individuals. This emphasizes the need to carefully design and disseminate accurate and tailored health- prevention information campaigns when experiencing public health crises such as this one caused by COVID-19. Finally, the psychological impact is closely related to threat susceptibility and the latter, to threat severity and fear of COVID-19, as is significantly revealed in the subsample of people accepting COVID-19 vaccines. A profile of at-risk individuals who suffer psychological effects due to the COVID-19 situation was depicted, including females of younger age and those experiencing chronic conditions and a different range of psychological symptoms, including anxiety. This profile varies slightly depending on attitudes towards vaccination, and could serve to tackle and activate different mental health strategies to buffer the psychological impact this severe crisis could entail for the general population and especially for vulnerable individuals. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https: //www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19084539/s1, Table S1: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Author Contributions: C.C.-T. and A.C. were responsible for the study design and conducting. M.T.- S. and C.C.-T. analyzed data. C.C.-T. wrote the first draft of the manuscript and following versions. M.T.-S. and A.C. participated in the following versions of the manuscript and made significant contributions to its final version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Institutional Review Board Statement: The research ethics procedures of this study complied with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals concerning the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. Data were treated with confidentiality, equality, and justice, respecting the Helsinki principles. Researchers have also considered the American Psychological Association (APA) ethical principles of research conduct. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 16 of 17 Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from participants involved in the study to publish their results in combination with the rest of the participants’ results. Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Acknowledgments: We gratefully acknowledge all participants for their contributions to the study and for circulating this survey during the process of data collection. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. References 1. COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). Available online: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (accessed on 8 June 2020). 2. Available online: https://www.census.gov/popclock (accessed on 8 March 2022). 3. Wiederhold, B.K. Using Social Media to Our Advantage: Alleviating Anxiety During a Pandemic. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2020, 23, 197–198. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Carroll, J.K.; Moorhead, A.; Bond, R.; LeBlanc, W.G.; Petrella, R.J.; Fiscella, K. Who Uses Mobile Phone Health Apps and Does Use Matter? A Secondary Data Analytics Approach. J. Med Internet Res. 2017, 19, e125. [CrossRef] 5. Ventola, C.L. Mobile devices and apps for health care professionals: Uses and benefits. Pharm. Ther. 2014, 39, 356–364. 6. Wijesooriya, N.R.; Mishra, V.; Brand, P.L.P.; Rubin, B.K. COVID-19 and telehealth, education, and research adaptations. Paediatr. Respir. Rev. 2019, 35, 38–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Bradshaw, S.; Howard, P.N. The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation; Computational Propaganda Research Project: Oxford, UK, 2019. 8. Fung, I.C.-H.; Duke, C.H.; Finch, K.C.; Snook, K.R.; Tseng, P.-L.; Hernandez, A.C.; Gambhir, M.; Fu, K.-W.; Tse, Z.T.H. Ebola virus disease and social media: A systematic review. Am. J. Infect. Control 2016, 44, 1660–1671. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. World Health Organization [WHO]. Available online: https://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2014/october/3_ SAGE_WG_Strategies_addressing_vaccine_hesitancy_2014.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2022). 10. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Advice for the Public: Myth Busters. 2020. Available online: https: //www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters (accessed on 23 April 2020). 11. Lewandowsky, S.; Cook, J.; Schmid, P.; Holford, D.L.; Finn, A.; Leask, J.; Thomson, A.; Lombardi, D.; Al-Rawi, A.K.; Amazeen, M.A.; et al. The COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook. A Practical Guide for Improving Vaccine Communication and Fighting Misinformation. 2021. Available online: https://sks.to/c19vax (accessed on 8 March 2022). 12. World Health Organization [WHO]. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1 (accessed on 8 March 2022). 13. Ratzan, S.C. “Vaccine Communication in a Pandemic: Improving Vaccine Literacy to Reduce Hesitancy, Restore Trust and Immunize Communities”: Editor’s Introduction. J. Health Commun. 2020, 25, 745–746. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Garfin, D.R. Technology as a coping tool during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Implications and rec- ommendations. Stress Health 2020, 36, 555–559. [CrossRef] 15. Kalantzi, S.; Kostagiolas, P.; Kechagias, G.; Niakas, D.; Makrilakis, K. Information seeking behavior of patients with diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional study in an outpatient clinic of a university-affiliated hospital in Athens, Greece. BMC Res. Notes 2015, 8, 48. [CrossRef] 16. Kostagiolas, P.; Tsiligros, P.; Theodorou, P.; Tentolouris, N.; Niakas, D. A cross-sectional survey interconnecting health information seeking behavior with clinical data of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Libr. Hi Tech 2020, 39, 448–461. [CrossRef] 17. Majid, S.; Rahmat, N.A. Information Needs and Seeking Behavior During the H1N1 Virus Outbreak. J. Inf. Sci. Theory Pract. 2013, 1, 42–53. [CrossRef] 18. Odlum, M.; Yoon, S. Health Information Needs and Health Seeking Behavior during the 2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak: A Twitter Content Analysis. PLoS Curr. 2018, 10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 19. Green, E.C.; Murphy, E. Health Belief Model. Wiley Encycl. Health Psychol. 2014, 766–769. [CrossRef] 20. Rogers, R.W. A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change. J. Psychol. 1975, 91, 93–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 21. Hou, Z.; Du, F.; Zhou, X.; Jiang, H.; Martin, S.; Larson, H.; Lin, L. Cross-Country Comparison of Public Awareness, Rumors, and Behavioral Responses to the COVID-19 Epidemic: Infodemiology Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e21143. [CrossRef] 22. Lin, C.-Y.; Broström, A.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. Investigating mediated effects of fear of COVID-19 and COVID-19 misunderstanding in the association between problematic social media use, psychological distress, and insomnia. Internet Interv. 2020, 21, 100345. [CrossRef] 23. Austin, E.W.; Austin, B.W.; Willoughby, J.F.; Amram, O.; Domgaard, S. How Media Literacy and Science Media Literacy Predicted the Adoption of Protective Behaviors Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Health Commun. 2021, 26, 239–252. [CrossRef] 24. Ahorsu, D.K.; Lin, C.-Y.; Imani, V.; Saffari, M.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and Initial Validation. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 1–9. [CrossRef] Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4539 17 of 17 25. Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.W.; Löwe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 1092–1097. [CrossRef] 26. Chen, K.; Chen, A.; Zhang, J.; Meng, J.; Shen, C. Conspiracy and debunking narratives about COVID-19 origins on Chinese social media: How it started and who is to blame. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinf. Rev. 2020. [CrossRef] 27. COVID-19-related Misinformation: Fabricated and Unverified Content on Social Media. Anal. Metaphys. 2020, 19, 87. [CrossRef] 28. van der Pligt, J.; De Vries, N.K. Expectancy-Value models of health behaviour: The role of salience and anticipated affect. Psychol. Health 1998, 13, 289–305. [CrossRef] 29. Park, T.; Ju, I.; Ohs, J.E.; Hinsley, A. Optimistic bias and preventive behavioral engagement in the context of COVID-19. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2020, 17, 1859–1866. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Weinstein, N. Health Risk Appraisal and Optimistic Bias. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 6612–6615. 31. Du, H.; Yang, J.; King, R.B.; Yang, L.; Chi, P. COVID-19 Increases Online Searches for Emotional and Health-Related Terms. Applied Psychology. Health Well-Being 2020, 12, 1039–1053. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Castellano-Tejedor, C.; Torres-Serrano, M.; Cencerrado, A. Psychological impact in the time of COVID-19: A cross-sectional population survey study during confinement. J. Health Psychol. 2021, 27, 974–989. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Kshirsagar, M.M.; Dodamani, A.S.; Dodamani, G.A.; Khobragade, V.R.; Deokar, R.N. Impact of Covid-19 on Mental Health: An Overview. Rev. Recent Clin. Trials 2021, 16, 227–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Rathod, S.; Pallikadavath, S.; Young, A.H.; Graves, L.; Rahman, M.M.; Brooks, A.; Soomro, M.; Rathod, P.; Phiri, P. Psy-chological impact of COVID-19 pandemic: Protocol and results of first three weeks from an international cross-section survey—Focus on health professionals. J. Affect. Disord. Rep. 2020, 1, 100005. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Rieckert, A.; Schuit, E.; Bleijenberg, N.; Cate, D.T.; De Lange, W.; Ginkel, J.M.D.M.-V.; Mathijssen, E.; Smit, L.C.; Stalpers, D.; Schoonhoven, L.; et al. How can we build and maintain the resilience of our health care professionals during COVID-19? Recommendations based on a scoping review. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e043718. [CrossRef] 36. Ahorsu, D.K.; Lin, C.-Y.; Pakpour, A.H. The Association Between Health Status and Insomnia, Mental Health, and Preventive Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Fear of COVID-19. Gerontol. Geriatr. Med. 2020, 6. [CrossRef] 37. Pramukti, I.; Strong, C.; Sitthimongkol, Y.; Setiawan, A.; Pandin, M.G.R.; Yen, C.-F.; Lin, C.-Y.; Griffiths, M.D.; Ko, N.-Y. Anxiety and Suicidal Thoughts During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Country Comparative Study Among Indonesian, Taiwanese, and Thai University Students. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e24487. [CrossRef] 38. Allen, J.D.; Feng, W.; Corlin, L.; Porteny, T.; Acevedo, A.; Schildkraut, D.; King, E.; Ladin, K.; Fu, Q.; Stopka, T.J. Why are some people reluctant to be vaccinated for COVID-19? A cross-sectional survey among U.S. Adults in May–June 2020. Prev. Med. Rep. 2021, 24, 101494. [CrossRef] 39. Nomura, S.; Eguchi, A.; Yoneoka, D.; Kawashima, T.; Tanoue, Y.; Murakami, M.; Sakamoto, H.; Maruyama-Sakurai, K.; Gilmour, S.; Shi, S.; et al. Reasons for being unsure or unwilling regarding intention to take COVID-19 vaccine among Japanese people: A large cross-sectional national survey. Lancet Reg. Health-West. Pac. 2021, 14, 100223. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 40. Teasdale, C.A.; Borrell, L.N.; Shen, Y.; Kimball, S.; Rinke, M.L.; Fleary, S.A.; Nash, D. Parental plans to vaccinate children for COVID-19 in New York city. Vaccine 2021, 39, 5082–5086. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 41. Hafstad, G.S.; Augusti, E.-M. A lost generation? COVID-19 and adolescent mental health [Review of A lost generation? COVID-19 and adolescent mental health]. Lancet. Psychiatry 2021, 8, 640–641. [CrossRef] 42. Fenollar-Cortés, J.; Jiménez, Ó.; Ruiz-García, A.; Resurrección, D.M. Gender Differences in Psychological Impact of the Confine- ment During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Spain: A Longitudinal Study. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 682860. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Singer, E.; Van Hoewyk, J.; Maher, M.P. Experiments with Incentives in Telephone Surveys. Public Opin. Q. 2000, 64, 171–188. [CrossRef]