Syftet med den här studien är att undersöka vad som skiljer i personlighet mellan studenter som vaccinerade sig mot svininfluensan och studenter som inte vaccinerade sig. Studien genomfördes genom en kvantitativ enkätundersökning på 194 studenter från ett universitet i Svealand. Deltagarna fick besvara psykometriska personlighetstester som mätte känslighet, ångest, depression, sympati och pålitlighet. Därefter utfördes statistiska test i SPSS för att i huvudsak beräkna medelvärdesskillnader. Resultaten visar att vaccinerade studenter är signifikant känsligare än ovaccinerade studenter. Vaccinerade studenter är också mer ångestfyllda men skillnaderna är inte signifikanta. Det finns inga nämnvärda skillnader i depression, sympati eller pålitlighet. Typ av utbildning och kön predicerar heller inte vaccinering. Sammanfattningsvis ska känslighet därmed ses som den viktigaste prediktorn för vilka personer som vaccinerar sig vid pandemier. Resultatet kan generaliseras till den svenska befolkningen eftersom studiens andel vaccinerade motsvarar befolkningens andel vaccinerade. Studiens urval motsvarar däremot inte den svenska populationens genomsnittliga utbildningsnivå. Å andra sidan har utbildningsnivå inte visat sig vara en betydande faktor för hälsoskyddande beteenden i tidigare forskning, varför mitt resultat bör betraktas som betydelsefullt. / The purpose of this study is to examine which personality aspects that are differing from students who got vaccinated against the swine flu, to students who did not get vaccinated. This study carried out a quantitative survey on 194 students from a mid-region university in Sweden. The participants were to answer psychometric personality tests on sensitivity, anxiety, depression, sympathy and dependability. Thereafter, statistical tests were conducted through SPSS, mainly to calculate mean differences. The results conclude that vaccinated students are significantly more sensitive than un-vaccinated students. Vaccinated students are also more anxious but these differences are not significant. There are no notable differences in depression, sympathy or dependability. Type of education and sex do not either predict vaccination. Finally, sensitivity shall be viewed as the most important predictor in a person’s likeliness to get vaccinated at pandemics. The findings can be generalized to the Swedish population because the proportion of vaccinated students in this study corresponds to the proportion of vaccinated people of the Swedish population. However, the sample of this study does not correspond to the educational level of the Swedish population. On the other hand, educational level has not been shown as an important determinant in health protective behaviors in former research literature, why my result should be considered as meaningful.

Background: Several studies suggest that most school-age children are poorly informed about cancer risk factors. This study examines the effectiveness of the ‘Be smart against cancer’ (BSAC) program in promoting cancer awareness and intentions to engage in health-promoting behavior. Methods: 235 seventh-grade students were randomized to either the intervention (N = 152) or the wait-control group (N = 83). The intervention included the modules: “What is cancer?,” “Sun protection,” “Non smoking,” and “Physical activity, Healthy nutrition, and Limited alcohol consumption.” Outcomes measured at baseline and at the end of the one week BSAC program included knowledge of cancer and its behavioral risk factors, health-promoting intentions, and reported risk behavior. Results: BSAC was effective in increasing knowledge about cancer and risk factors for cancer (p < .001), as well as in increasing intentions to engage in health-promoting behavior (p < .001), independent of a student’s risk profile. Knowledge did not serve as a mediator for intention building. Conclusions: The BSAC is an effective school-based program for raising awareness of cancer, associated risk factors and intentions to engage in cancer-preventive behavior. The results indicate that the effectiveness of BSAC is independent of a student’s risk profile. Therefore, it holds considerable promise as a broadly applicable program to raise cancer awareness and promote healthy behavior intentions.

Background: Several studies suggest that most school-age children are poorly informed about cancer risk factors. This study examines the effectiveness of the ‘Be smart against cancer’ (BSAC) program in promoting cancer awareness and intentions to engage in health-promoting behavior. Methods: 235 seventh-grade students were randomized to either the intervention (N = 152) or the wait-control group (N = 83). The intervention included the modules: “What is cancer?,” “Sun protection,” “Non smoking,” and “Physical activity, Healthy nutrition, and Limited alcohol consumption.” Outcomes measured at baseline and at the end of the one week BSAC program included knowledge of cancer and its behavioral risk factors, health-promoting intentions, and reported risk behavior. Results: BSAC was effective in increasing knowledge about cancer and risk factors for cancer (p < .001), as well as in increasing intentions to engage in health-promoting behavior (p < .001), independent of a student’s risk profile. Knowledge did not serve as a mediator for intention building. Conclusions: The BSAC is an effective school-based program for raising awareness of cancer, associated risk factors and intentions to engage in cancer-preventive behavior. The results indicate that the effectiveness of BSAC is independent of a student’s risk profile. Therefore, it holds considerable promise as a broadly applicable program to raise cancer awareness and promote healthy behavior intentions.