Societal Trust Related to COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from Western Balkans
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sampling and Procedure
2.2. Measures
- (1)
- The short scale measuring social trust consisting of 6 items on a five-point agreement scale (ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”). Items represent trust in political authorities (one item), health authorities (one item), family physician (one item), pharmaceutical industry (two items), and scientists (one item). Factor analysis confirmed the one-factor structure of the scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for six items ranged from 0.87 in the Albanian sample to 0.91 in the Serbian sample, which indicated high internal consistency. The total score was calculated by summing the responses to all items and dividing that sum by the number of items (six). For the purpose of calculating the total score, the responses on items 1, 2, and 6 were reversely coded. The total score range was divided into four quartiles: 1–1.99 (highly negative), 2–2.99 (moderately negative), 3–3.99 (moderately positive), and 4–5 (highly positive).
- (2)
- Socio-demographic characteristics included eight items: gender, age, education level, employment status, financial status, marital status, having children, and religiousness.
- (3)
- Health-related characteristics included three items:
- -
- The existence of chronic health conditions was assessed by the single question, “Do you suffer from any chronic disease?” with the binary (Yes/No) response;
- -
- General health status was assessed with the 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Very good” to “Very bad”;
- -
- Had COVID-19—with the binary (Yes/No) response.
- (4)
- COVID-19 vaccination behavior was evaluated by the single item measure—“Have you been vaccinated?” question with the binary (Yes/No) response.
- (5)
- European Health Literacy Assessment Questionnaire [26] contains a total of 16 questions divided into three areas of inquiry: (1) Healthcare (7 questions), (2) Disease Prevention (5 questions), and (3) Health promotion (4 questions). Answers are given through a four-point Likert scale (1 = very difficult, 2 = difficult, 3 = easy, 4 = very easy). The indices for health literacy were standardized to unified metrics from 0 to 50 using the formula; Index = (Mean − 1) × (50/3), resulting in Health Literacy Index (HLI). HLI was categorized into four levels: Inadequate (0–25), Problematic (>25–33), Sufficient (>33–42), and Excellent (>42–50).
2.3. Statistical Analysis
2.4. Ethical Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Socio-Demographic and Health-Related Characteristics
3.2. Societal Trust and COVID-19 Vaccination Behavior
3.3. Determinants of Societal Trust
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Larson, H.J.; Clarke, R.M.; Jarrett, C.; Eckersberger, E.; Levine, Z.; Schulz, W.S.; Paterson, P. Measuring trust in vaccination. A systematic review. Hum. Vaccines Immunother 2018, 14, 1599–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gilson, L. Trust and the development of health care as a social institution. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56, 1453–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J.; Ward, P.R.; Tonkin, E.; Meyer, S.B.; Pillen, H.; McCullum, D.; Toson, B.; Webb, T.; Coveney, J.; Wilson, A. Developing and maintaining public trust during and post-COVID-19: Can we apply a model developed for responding to food scares? Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blair, R.A.; Morse, B.S.; Tsai, L.L. Public health and public trust: Survey evidence from the Ebola virus Disease epidemic in Liberia. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 172, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mesch, G.S.; Schwirian, K.P. Confidence in government and vaccination willingness in the USA. Health Promot. Int. 2015, 30, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lazarus, J.V.; Ratzan, S.; Palayew, A.; Gostin, L.O.; Larson, H.J.; Rabin, K.; Kimball, S.; El-Mohandes, A. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat. Med. 2020, 27, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Troiano, G.; Nardi, A. Vaccine hesitancy in the era of COVID-19. Public Health 2021, 194, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Solís Arce, J.S.; Warren, S.S.; Meriggi, N.F.; Scacco, A.; McMurry, N.; Voors, M.; Syunyaev, G.; Malik, A.A.; Aboutajdine, S.; Adeojo, O.; et al. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in low-and middle-income countries. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 1385–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinert, J.I.; Sternberg, H.; Prince, H.; Fasolo, B.; Galizzi, M.M.; Büthe, T.; Veltri, G.A. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in eight European countries: Prevalence, determinants, and heterogeneity. Sci. Adv. 2022, 8, eabm9825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, H.J.; Gakidou, E.; Murray, C.J. The Vaccine-Hesitant Moment. NEJM 2022, 387, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldenberg, M.J. Vaccines, values and science. CMAJ 2019, 191, E397–E398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerr, J.R.; Schneider, C.R.; Recchia, G.; Dryhurst, S.; Sahlin, U.; Dufouil, C.; Arwidson, P.; Freeman, A.L.; Van Der Linden, S. Correlates of intended COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across time and countries: Results from a series of cross-sectional surveys. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e048025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van der Meer, T.W. Political Trust and the “Crisis Of Democracy”. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. 2017. Available online: https://oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-77 (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Maleki, A. How do leading methods mislead? Measuring public opinions in authoritarian contexts. In Proceedings of the IPSA 2021—26th World Congress of Political Science, Online, 10–15 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Balkan Barometer. 2021. Available online: https://www.rcc.int/balkanbarometer/ (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Prelec, T.; Vasiljević, J.; Džihić, V.; Kmezić, M. Policy Brief: Outtatrust? (Post)-Pandemic Trust and Democratic Resilience in the Western Balkans; Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG): Belgrade, Serbia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Our World in Data. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/albania?country=ALB~BIH~MKD~MNE~SRB (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Vu, T.S.; Le, M.A.; Huynh, N.T.; Truong, L.; Vu, G.T.; Nguyen, L.H.; Vu, L.G.; Tran, B.X.; Latkin, C.A.; Ho, C.; et al. Towards efficacy and sustainability of global, regional and national COVID-19 vaccination programs. J. Glob. Health 2022, 11, 03099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grütter, J.; Buchmann, M. Developmental antecedents of young adults’ solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of sympathy, social trust, and peer exclusion from early to late adolescence. Child Dev. 2021, 92, e832–e850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chadi, N.; Ryan, N.C.; Geoffroy, M.C. COVID-19 and the impacts on youth mental health: Emerging evidence from longitudinal studies. Les impacts de la pandémie de la COVID-19 sur la santémentale des jeunes: Donnéesémergeantes des études longitudinales. Can. J. Public Health 2022, 113, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinson, D.J. A conception of adult development. Am. Psychol. 1986, 41, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinson, D.J. The Seasons of a Woman’s Life; Knopf Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Shapiro, G.K.; Tatar, O.; Dube, E.; Amsel, R.; Knauper, B.; Naz, A.; Perez, S.; Rosberger, Z. The vaccine hesitancy scale: Psychometric properties and validation. Vaccine 2018, 36, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, L.R.; Petrie, K.J. Understanding the dimensions of anti-vaccination attitudes: The vaccination attitudes examination (VAX) scale. Ann. Behav. Med. 2017, 51, 652–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danabal, K.G.M.; Magesh, S.S.; Saravanan, S.; Gopichandran, V. Attitude towards COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine hesitancy in urban and rural communities in Tamil Nadu, India–A community based survey. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelikan, J.M.; Straßmayr, C.; Ganahl, K. Health Literacy Measurement in General and Other Populations: Further Initiatives and Lessons Learned in Europe (and Beyond). In Health Literacy in Clinical Practice and Public Health; Logan, R.A., Siegel, E.R., Eds.; IOS Press: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2020; pp. 170–191. [Google Scholar]
- Maljichi, D.; Limani, B.; Spier, T.E.; Angjelkoska, V.; Stojkovic Zlatanovic, S.; Maljichi, D.; Alloqi Tahirbegolli, I.; Tahirbegolli, B.; Kulanić, A.; Agolli Nasufi, I.; et al. (Dis) Trust in Doctors and Public and Private Healthcare Institutions in the Western Balkans. Health Expec. 2022, 25, 2015–2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD iLibrary. Government at a Glance: Western Balkans. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/66c0a11f-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/66c0a11f-en (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Berggren, N.; Bjørnskov, C. Does Religiosity Promote or Discourage Social Trust? Evidence from Cross-Country and Cross-State Comparisons. 2009. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1478445 (accessed on 15 July 2022.).
- Nickel, B.; Pickles, K.; Cvejic, E.; Copp, T.; Dodd, R.H.; Bonner, C.; Seale, H.; Steffens, M.; Meyerowitz-Katz, G.; McCaffery, K. Predictors of confidence and trust in government and institutions during the COVID-19 response in Australia. Lancet Reg. Health West. Pac. 2022, 23, 100490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mata, F.; Martins, P.S.; Lopes-Silva, J.B.; Mansur-Alves, M.; Saeri, A.; Grundy, E.; Smith, L. Age and education moderate the relationship between confidence in health and political authorities and intention to adopt COVID-19 health-protective behaviours. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2021, 41, 963–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanellopoulou, A.; Koskeridis, F.; Markozannes, G.; Bouras, E.; Soutziou, C.; Chaliasos, K.; Tsilidis, K.K. Awareness, knowledge and trust in the Greek authorities towards COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the Epirus Health Study cohort. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, D.; Zhou, Q.; Pratt, C.B.; Su, Z.; Gu, Z. Investigating the Relationships Between Public Health Literacy and Public Trust in Physicians in China’s Control of COVID-19: A Cross-Sectional Study. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 758529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kassirer, J.P. Patient, physicians and the internet. Health Aff. 2000, 19, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Erdem, S.A.; Harrisonwalker, L.J. The role of the Internet in physician-patient relationships: The issue of trust. Bus Horizons. 2006, 49, 387–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sell, T.K.; Hosangadi, D.; Trotochaud, M.; Purnat, T.D.; Nguyen, T.; Briand, S. Improving understanding of and response to Infodemics during public health emergencies. Health Secur. 2021, 19, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bieber, F.; Prelec, T.; Jovic, D.; Nechev, Z. The Suspicious Virus: Conspiracies and COVID-19 in the Balkans; Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG): Belgrade, Serbia, 2021; Available online: http://balkanfund.org/biepag-publications/the-suspicious-virus-conspiracies-and-covid19-in-the-balkans (accessed on 15 July 2022.).
- Ries, M. The COVID-19 Infodemic: Mechanism, Impact, and Counter-Measures—A Review of Reviews. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cormick, C. We Need to Do Better: Five Notable Failings in Science Communication. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leonard, M.J.; Philippe, F.L. Conspiracy theories: A public health concern and how to address it. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | Albania | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Montenegro | North Macedonia | Serbia |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||
Male | 71 (31.7%) | 57 (31.8%) | 35 (22.2%) | 57 (24.7%) | 126 (34.5%) |
Female | 153 (68.3%) | 122 (68.2%) | 123 (77.8%) | 174 (75.3%) | 239 (65.5%) |
Education level | |||||
High school | 20 (8.9%) | 111 (62.0%) | 65 (41.1%) | 99 (43.0%) | 97 (26.6%) |
Bachelor‘s degree | 97 (43.3%) | 58 (32.4%) | 72 (45.6%) | 105 (45.7%) | 143 (39.2%) |
Master‘s degree | 92 (41.1%) | 10 (5.6%) | 15 (9.5%) | 22 (9.6%) | 91 (24.9%) |
Ph.D. | 15 (6.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (3.8%) | 4 (1.7%) | 34 (9.3%) |
Employment status | |||||
Employed | 130 (58.0%) | 65 (36.3%) | 82 (51.9%) | 98 (42.4%) | 240 (65.8%) |
Self-employed | 23 (10.3%) | 11 (6.1%) | 19 (12.0%) | 13 (5.6%) | 45 (12.3%) |
Unemployed | 71 (31.7%) | 103 (57.5%) | 57 (36.1%) | 120 (51.9%) | 80 (21.9%) |
Material status | |||||
Very good | 24 (10.7%) | 31 (17.3%) | 14 (8.9%) | 19 (18.2%) | 47 (12.9%) |
Good | 63 (28.1%) | 79 (44.1%) | 58 (36.7%) | 77 (33.3%) | 137 (37.5%) |
Average | 118 (52.7%) | 64 (35.8%) | 77 (48.7%) | 111 (48.1%) | 154 (42.2%) |
Bad | 18 (8.0%) | 4 (2.2%) | 7 (4.4%) | 20 (8.7%) | 25 (6.8%) |
Very bad | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (0.6%) | 2 (1.3%) | 4 (1.7%) | 2 (0.5%) |
Marital status | |||||
Single | 111 (49.6%) | 130 (72.6%) | 74 (46.8%) | 174 (75.3%) | 151 (41.1%) |
Married | 87 (38.8%) | 43 (24.0%) | 60 (38.0%) | 49 (21.2%) | 157 (43.0%) |
Cohabitation | 24 (10.7%) | 1 (0.6%) | 18 (11.4%) | 8 (3.5%) | 48 (13.2%) |
Divorced | 1 (0.4%) | 4 (2.2%) | 6 (3.8%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (1.9%) |
Widowed | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (0.5%) |
Having children | |||||
Yes | 84 (37.5%) | 44 (24.6%) | 69 (43.7%) | 42 (18.2%) | 163 (44.7%) |
No | 140 (62.5%) | 135 (75.4%) | 89 (56.3%) | 189 (81.8%) | 202 (55.3%) |
Religiousness | |||||
Yes | 145 (64.7%) | 142 (79.3%) | 111 (70.3%) | 155 (67.1%) | 218 (59.7%) |
No | 79 (35.3%) | 37 (20.7%) | 47 (29.7%) | 76 (32.9%) | 147 (40.3%) |
General health status | |||||
Very good | 102 (45.5%) | 67 (37.4%) | 51 (32.2%) | 88 (38.1%) | 99 (27.1%) |
Good | 97 (43.3%) | 86 (48.0%) | 81 (51.3%) | 104 (45.0%) | 194 (53.2%) |
Average | 22 (9.8%) | 25 (14%) | 24 (15.2%) | 34 (14.7%) | 65 (17.8%) |
Bad | 3 (1.3%) | 1 (0.6%) | 2 (1.3%) | 5 (2.2%) | 7 (1.9%) |
Very bad | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Chronic disease | |||||
Yes | 25 (11.2%) | 22 (12.3%) | 31 (19.6%) | 30 (13.0%) | 69 (18.9%) |
No | 199 (88.8%) | 157 (87.7%) | 127 (80.4%) | 201 (87.0%) | 296 (81.1%) |
Had COVID-19 | |||||
Yes | 118 (52.7%) | 45 (25.1%) | 69 (43.7%) | 87 (37.7%) | 123 (33.7%) |
No | 106 (47.3%) | 134 (74.9%) | 89 (56.3%) | 144 (62.3%) | 242 (66.3%) |
Health Literacy Index * | |||||
Inadequate | 135 (82.3%) | 8 (5.2%) | 107 (76.4%) | 131 (71.6%) | 19 (6.5%) |
Problematic | 17 (10.4%) | 43 (27.7%) | 23 (16.4%) | 27 (14.8%) | 94 (32.2%) |
Sufficient | 7 (4.3%) | 74 (47.7%) | 3 (2.1%) | 17 (9.3%) | 117 (40.1%) |
Excellent | 5 (3.0%) | 30 (19.4%) | 7 (5.0%) | 8 (4,4%) | 62 (21.0%) |
Country | N | M | SD | df | F | p | Partial η2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vaccination against COVID-19 is largely promoted by pharmaceutical companies in order to gain financial profits. | Albania | 224 | 3.05 | 1.40 | 4 | 10.612 | <0.008 | 0.04 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 179 | 3.03 | 1.37 | |||||
Montenegro | 158 | 2.65 | 1.43 | |||||
North Macedonia | 231 | 2.40 | 1.37 | |||||
Serbia | 365 | 2.50 | 1.45 | |||||
Pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to publish comprehensive and detailed research reports on the risks of adverse reactions to vaccines. | Albania | 224 | 3.38 | 1.37 | 4 | 7.932 | <0.008 | 0.03 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 179 | 3.31 | 1.33 | |||||
Montenegro | 158 | 3.00 | 1.41 | |||||
North Macedonia | 231 | 2.77 | 1.42 | |||||
Serbia | 365 | 2.89 | 1.49 | |||||
I believe that health authorities when they encourage vaccination, do so with the best intentions. | Albania | 224 | 3.60 | 1.35 | 4 | 12.867 | <0.008 | 0.04 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 179 | 3.46 | 1.30 | |||||
Montenegro | 158 | 4.03 | 1.31 | |||||
North Macedonia | 231 | 3.92 | 1.28 | |||||
Serbia | 365 | 3.28 | 1.45 | |||||
I believe that political authorities when they encourage vaccination, do so with the best of intentions. | Albania | 224 | 3.12 | 1.47 | 4 | 15.066 | <0.008 | 0.05 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 179 | 3.25 | 1.33 | |||||
Montenegro | 158 | 3.84 | 1.41 | |||||
North Macedonia | 231 | 3.70 | 1.40 | |||||
Serbia | 365 | 3.00 | 1.49 | |||||
Family physicians have an important role in educating people about the importance of vaccination against COVID-19. | Albania | 224 | 3.99 | 1.25 | 4 | 3.252 | 0.012 | 0.01 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 179 | 3.83 | 1.27 | |||||
Montenegro | 158 | 3.97 | 1.36 | |||||
North Macedonia | 231 | 4.23 | 1.19 | |||||
Serbia | 365 | 3.88 | 1.33 | |||||
I think that the principal motive for the scientists who participated in the creation of the vaccine against COVID-19 was profit. | Albania | 224 | 3.00 | 1.46 | 4 | 13.015 | <0.008 | 0.04 |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 179 | 2.78 | 1.31 | |||||
Montenegro | 158 | 2.49 | 1.36 | |||||
North Macedonia | 231 | 2.22 | 1.22 | |||||
Serbia | 365 | 2.36 | 1.35 |
Albania | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Montenegro | North Macedonia | Serbia | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
Societal trust | 2.28 (1.64–3.18) ** | 2.83 (1.87–4.28) ** | 2.18 (1.55–3.07) ** | 3.40 (2.37–4.89) ** | 5.15 (3.69–7.17) ** |
Albania | Bosnia and Herzegovina a | Montenegro | North Macedonia b | Serbia c | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 3.626 ** | 3.485 ** | 4.068 ** | 4.925 ** | 4.515 ** |
Age | −0.16 * | −0.13 * | |||
Gender | |||||
Female | Ref. | Ref. | |||
Male | −0.14 | −0.14 * | |||
Education | |||||
High school | Ref. | Ref. | |||
Bachelor‘s degree | 0.15 * | 0.01 | |||
Master‘s degree | 0.21 ** | 0.20 ** | |||
Doctoral degree | 0.18 ** | ||||
Religiousness | |||||
No | Ref. | ||||
Yes | −0.15 ** | ||||
HLI | −0.24 ** | −0.23 ** | −0.30 ** | 0.08 | |
R | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.33 | 0.35 |
R2 (Adjusted) | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.11 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cvjetkovic, S.; Jeremic Stojkovic, V.; Mandic-Rajcevic, S.; Matovic-Miljanovic, S.; Jankovic, J.; Jovic Vranes, A.; Stevanovic, A.; Stamenkovic, Z. Societal Trust Related to COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from Western Balkans. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013547
Cvjetkovic S, Jeremic Stojkovic V, Mandic-Rajcevic S, Matovic-Miljanovic S, Jankovic J, Jovic Vranes A, Stevanovic A, Stamenkovic Z. Societal Trust Related to COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from Western Balkans. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013547
Chicago/Turabian StyleCvjetkovic, Smiljana, Vida Jeremic Stojkovic, Stefan Mandic-Rajcevic, Sanja Matovic-Miljanovic, Janko Jankovic, Aleksandra Jovic Vranes, Aleksandar Stevanovic, and Zeljka Stamenkovic. 2022. "Societal Trust Related to COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from Western Balkans" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013547
APA StyleCvjetkovic, S., Jeremic Stojkovic, V., Mandic-Rajcevic, S., Matovic-Miljanovic, S., Jankovic, J., Jovic Vranes, A., Stevanovic, A., & Stamenkovic, Z. (2022). Societal Trust Related to COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from Western Balkans. Sustainability, 14(20), 13547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013547